slcdailylaw
  • Home
  • Topic Search
  • Advanced Search
  • Citation Search
  • Bookmarks
  • Login
  1. Home
  2. Latest Cases
(1) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Death

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 166, 168—Death claim—Assessment of notional income—Notification dated 17.03.2017 issued by Ministry of Labour and Employment relied upon to determine notional income of a driver at Rs. 10,000/- per month—Tribunal erred in assessing income at Rs. 6,000/- per month—Deceased’s income reassessed at Rs. 10,000/- per month—Future prospects at 25% added—Resulting in enhancement of compensation. [Paras 9, 10, 13] B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 166, 168—Death claim—Enhancement of compensation—Separate consortium of Rs. 44,000/- awarded to each of the appellants—Funeral expenses and loss of estate granted under conventional heads—Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,31,948/- with interest at 6% per annum from date...

(2) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Maintenance

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 125—Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 5(1)(i), 11—Maintenance—Second marriage—Validity—Claim for maintenance by woman alleging temple marriage—Failure to prove dissolution of her earlier marriage—Marriage with respondent during subsistence of first marriage is void—Woman not a “legally wedded wife” and not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC—Family Court rightly rejected claim. [Paras 9 to 10] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 397—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope—Revisional court to examine legality, propriety or correctness of findings—Re-appreciation of evidence not permissible unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence—No error or illegality fou...

Revision dismissed
(3) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Writ petition

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981—Ss. 3(1), 2(b-1)—Preventive Detention—Subjective Satisfaction—Non-consideration of Bail Orders—Arms Act, 1959—Ss. 4, 25—Public Order vs. Law and Order—Vague In-camera Statements—The detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the MPDA Act was challenged on the ground of non-application of mind and violation of constitutional safeguards—Held, that where the detaining authority records that the detenu has been released on bail, it is incumbent upon it to consider the bail orders, conditions imposed, and the likelihood of the detenu indulging in similar activities—Failure to do so vitiates the subjective satisfaction and infringes the right of effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution—It was...

(4) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948—Sections 32(G), 32(P), 63, 84; Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947—Recovery of Possession; Tenant’s Rights; Sale; Laches and Estoppel—Application for recovery of possession under Section 84 filed decades after the death of the original protected tenant (36 years) is not maintainable where legal heirs were not in possession during the tenant’s lifetime and failed to initiate proceedings after attaining majority—A tenant who does not exercise the right to purchase land during inquiry under Section 32(G) surrenders the land to the original owner, terminating the tenant-landlord relationship during the tenant’s lifetime—Sale executed after regrant and subsequent mutation is valid; procedural irregularities, in...

Petition dismissed
(5) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Validity

Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981—Section 3(1)—Preventive detention—Validity—Judicial scrutiny—Preventive detention being an exceptional measure curtailing the fundamental right to personal liberty without trial, strict adherence to statutory and constitutional safeguards is mandatory—An offence under Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959, requires existence of a valid Central Government notification prohibiting possession of specified arms in a particular area; absence of such notification is fatal to both prosecution and preventive detention founded on such offence—Non-consideration of bail applications and bail orders, when the detenu is on bail, vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority—Reliance on vague and unverified in-camera statements lacking s...

(6) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Execution of decree

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 1—Execution—Detention in civil prison—Requirement of notice and hearing—Executing Court directed detention of judgment-debtor in civil prison for alleged breach of decree without issuing prior notice or affording opportunity of hearing—Order involved deprivation of personal liberty—Held, even in cases of breach of decree, executing Court is bound to follow principles of natural justice—Failure to issue notice or call for explanation before passing coercive order vitiates the order—Detention order unsustainable. [Paras 3, 6] B. Execution Proceedings—Breach of injunction—Willful disobedience—Scope of coercive action—Even assuming willful breach of decree or injunction, executing Court cannot straightaway resort to arrest...

(7) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Acquittal

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Legally enforceable debt—Foundational facts—Burden on complainant—Held, it is incumbent upon the complainant to first establish foundational facts showing existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability—Mere allegation of oral agreement for supply of labour without proof of privity of contract or advance payment is insufficient—In absence of proof of legally enforceable debt, prosecution under Section 138 cannot succeed—Acquittal upheld. [Paras 6, 8, 10] B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Presumption—Blank cheque defence—Appellate interference in acquittal—Held, though presumption may arise when issuance and signature are not disputed, complainant must still prove existence of enforceable ...

Appeal dismissed
(8) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Service Law

Service Law—Compassionate Appointment and Ex-Gratia Payment—Applicability of Prior Scheme—Where an employee voluntarily retired on medical grounds before the introduction of a new scheme (2015 Scheme), pending applications for compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment are governed by the earlier applicable circulars (HO Circular No. 35 of 2005 and Circular No. 262 of 2007)—Under the 2007 circular, employees retiring due to incapacitation were entitled to lump-sum ex-gratia payment without requiring certification from a medical panel, unlike the later 2015 scheme—Rejection of claims solely on the ground of absence of medical certification under the new scheme is arbitrary and legally impermissible—Financial benefits such as family pension, gratuity, or provident fund do not disqualify entitlement&md...

(9) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Family Law, Maintenance

Maintenance—Multiple Statutory Remedies—Duty of Disclosure—Set-off of Maintenance—Presumption of Husband’s Earning Capacity—Improper Dismissal Set Aside—A wife is legally entitled to seek maintenance under different statutory provisions, including Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the Hindu Marriage Act, as there is no bar to pursuing parallel remedies—However, the husband cannot be directed to pay maintenance independently under each proceeding; the court is duty-bound to consider maintenance already awarded in earlier proceedings and grant appropriate adjustment or set-off—It is mandatory for the applicant in a subsequent maintenance proceeding to disclose previous maintenance cases and orders to enable such adjustment—Non-disclosure, ...

(10) BOMBAY HIGH COURT {AURANGABAD BENCH}
Validity

Shree Shanaishwar Devasthan Trust (Shingnapur) Act, 2018—Sections 3, 4, 5, 36, 44, 46, 47, 48—Appointment of Administrator and Statutory Compliance—The statutory scheme mandates constitution of a Management Committee under Section 5 before Section 36 can authorize appointment of an Administrator; appointment of a Collector as Administrator prior to the Committee’s formation is ultra vires, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the Act—Executive attempts to create a ‘stop-gap’ administrative mechanism violate the Rule of Law and Article 14—Properties vest in the Section 5 Committee under Section 3(2), and any executive assumption of control before its constitution lacks authority under Article 300A—Powers under Section 48 (removal of difficulties) cannot justify actions inconsistent with the...

slcdailylaw

Tomar Publication

561, Sec-2, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut-250004

0121 3561932, +91 9458 5523 61

tomarpublication999@gmail.com

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© SLC Daily law all right reserved.

Cookies Required

Please enable cookies in your browser settings to continue.