Home Page

Judgments

High Court Of Bombay

The Bombay High Court is one of the oldest and most prestigious courts in India, with a rich history that dates back to the British colonial era. It has jurisdiction over the state of Maharashtra, as well as the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. The court is renowned for its efficient administration of justice and has delivered several landmark judgments over the years.

The Bombay High Court was established in 1862, during the British colonial era. The court was initially known as the Bombay Supreme Court and was responsible for delivering justice in the region. The court's jurisdiction was expanded over the years, and it was renamed the Bombay High Court in 1960, after the state of Bombay was reorganised into the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Today, the Bombay High Court is one of the busiest courts in India, with a large number of judges dedicated to handling a wide range of cases. The court has a reputation for being efficient and delivering justice in a timely manner, and is respected by both legal professionals and the general public.

Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court is located in Mumbai, the financial capital of India. The court is situated in a grand building that is considered to be one of the most impressive structures in the city. The building was designed by British architect George Wittet and was completed in 1878. The building is a stunning example of Gothic architecture and is a popular tourist attraction in Mumbai.

Location of Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has delivered several landmark judgments over the years, many of which have had a significant impact on the legal system of India. Some of the most notable judgments delivered by the court are:

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that a person who has been acquitted of a criminal charge can be retried if new evidence is discovered after the acquittal.

In this case, the Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Important Bombay High Court Judgments

This was a case related to the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, in which the accused were tried under the provisions of the MCOCA. The Supreme Court of India upheld the use of MCOCA in the case, stating that it was a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism. This judgment is significant as it clarifies the use of MCOCA in cases of terrorism.

The Bombay High Court has a reputation for delivering efficient justice and has been praised for its speedy disposal of cases. The court has embraced technology to a large extent and has implemented several measures to improve the delivery of justice. The court has also been proactive in protecting the rights of citizens and has delivered several Bombay High Court judgments that have had a positive impact on society.

Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

The Bombay High Court has a large number of judges, who are responsible for delivering justice in a timely and efficient manner. In addition to the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, there are several other judges who play an important role in the functioning of the court. Some of the most notable judges of the Bombay High Court are:

Judges of Bombay High Court

The process for the appointment of judges to the Bombay High Court is laid down in the Indian Constitution. The appointment of judges is done by the President of India, on the advice of the Chief Justice of India and the collegium of judges.

The collegium of judges is responsible for recommending the names of suitable candidates for appointment to the high court. The collegium comprises the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges of the Supreme Court.

Once the names of suitable candidates are recommended by the collegium, they are sent to the central government for approval. The central government then conducts a background check on the candidates and may consult with other stakeholders before making a final decision.

Once the appointment is approved, the new judge is sworn in by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and begins his or her tenure on the bench. The judges of the Bombay High Court are appointed for a term of two years, after which their tenure may be extended based on their performance and other factors.

The Bombay High Court is known for delivering efficient justice and has been praised for its speedy disposal of cases. The court has delivered several important judgments over the years, many of which have had a significant impact on the legal system of India.

The court has also been proactive in protecting the rights of citizens and has delivered several Bombay High Court judgments that have had a positive impact on society. Some of the most notable Bombay High Court orders delivered are:

These Bombay High Court orders and Bombay High Court judgement demonstrate the commitment of the Bombay High Court to upholding the law and protecting the rights of citizens. The judges of the court have a reputation for being fair and impartial, and they are known for their deep knowledge of the law and their dedication to justice.

The Bombay High Court has a total of 94 judges, including the Chief Justice of the court. These judges are appointed by the President of India, on the advice of the Chief Justice of India, in consultation with the Governor of Maharashtra and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

The court has a sanctioned strength of 94 judges, but currently, there are only 74 judges in position. The court has been facing a shortage of judges for several years now, and this has led to a backlog of cases. The Bombay High Court has been working to address this issue by appointing new judges, but progress has been slow.

The appointment of judges to the Bombay High Court follows a rigorous procedure that is designed to ensure that only the most qualified candidates are selected. The process begins with the identification of suitable candidates by the collegium, which is made up of the Chief Justice of India and four senior judges of the Supreme Court.

Once the collegium identifies suitable candidates, their names are forwarded to the government, which conducts a thorough background check and a review of their qualifications. The government may also seek the opinions of other judges, lawyers, and members of the legal community.

Once the review process is complete, the government forwards the names of the selected candidates to the President of India, who makes the final appointment on the advice of the Chief Justice of India.The appointment process for judges is a lengthy one and can take several months to complete. This has led to criticism in some quarters, with some arguing that the process is too slow and that it contributes to the backlog of cases in the courts.

However, others argue that the rigorous appointment process is necessary to ensure that only the most qualified candidates are selected and that the integrity of the judiciary is maintained.

Bombay High Court Judges Appointment Procedure

Bombay High Court Former Chief Justices,

Stay updated with High Court of Bombay judgments here at thebest legal search engine for free. Access significant legal judgments for informed decision-making and research.

Bombay High Court Judgments Search Directory

Know everything about the Bombay High Court Judgments! Whether you're a lawyer, law student, or just curious about the legal system, we have everything you need. Starting from Bombay high court orders, historical judgments of Mumbai High Court, and in-depth analyses of Bombay High Court judgments, all just a few clicks away for free in this legal search engine.

­­­ CORAM :­ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :­ 18th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The  Petitioner  has  invoked  section  34  of   the  Arbitration  & Conciliation  Act,  1996  (in  short  'the  Arbitration  Act')  and  thereby, challenged  the  award  dated  3.2.2009  passed  by  the  Sole  Arbitrator appointed under the bye­laws, rules and regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.(NSEIL). 2. The basic findings, given by the learned Arbitrator, including on counter claim while all

2. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellants of the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred Appeal No.496 of 2014. The brief facts giving rise to both the appeals are as under: 3. Victim  Mohan  Krishnarao  Gunjal  (P.W.No.4)  was residing at Panchavati, Pashan, Pune along with his wife Vandana (the informant) and daughter Priya (P.W.No.2). Mohan Gunjal was carrying on business of construction of dams. He r

ORAL JUDGMENT : The State of Maharashtra has preferred this Appeal under Section 36AB of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in Regular Criminal Case No.190 of 1994. 2 Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 3 The only point which needs to be answered is as to whether P.W.1­State Drug Inspector was competen

ORAL JUDGMENT : CORAM :SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : 29TH OCTOER, 2018 The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dahiwadi, Satara acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(m) and under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2002. Against it, this Appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.  The  learned  Trial  Judge  acquitted  th

4. The appellant in his written statement to the petition alleged that the respondent has been leading adulterous life. She initially had love affair with one Ramesh, who was driver of the van in which son Dhruv used to go to school.  The appellant had caught them red-handed.  When confronted, the respondent had assured to mend her ways. However, thereafter, she got involved with one Satish Kalang and then with one Om Hari Malang.  As regards the allegations made by the respondent in the matrimo

3. During the pendency of the trial, the Income Tax Department which had received information from the Police issued Warrant of Authorisation on 22nd May 2001 under Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act authorising four of its officers to require the Senior Police Inspector Unit -5 Crime Branch, CID  to deliver the aforesaid  assets, books of accounts, etc. to such authorised officers. Apparently, the authorisation could not be given effect to against the Sr. Police Inspector, Unit – 5, Crime Bran

1. These petitions arise in similar background.  They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. Primary facts may be noted from Writ Petition  No. 2145 of 2019. To the  extent the facts are different, shall be noted from the companion petition. 2. Petitioner  is  a  public  limited  company  and  is engaged  in  the  business  of  providing  telecommunication services. For the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner had  filed  return  of  income  on  31.10.2017 

4] In these two Petitions, and which claim to espouse the grievance and complaint of residents of Kolhapur, we have noticed that the residents of Kolhapur having approached this Court failed to abide by its highest traditions, practices and by their conduct demonstrated and proved that they are not worthy of the corresponding trust that the Judges of this Court repose in them.  Unfortunately, when matters are to be brought before this Court and in relation to legality and validity of levy, recov

High Court Of Bombay - 2009