Dark Mode
Image
header
Bombay High Court | Refund Of Stamp Duty Cannot Be Denied Solely On Limitation | Sections 47 & 48 Maharashtra Stamp Act

Bombay High Court | Refund Of Stamp Duty Cannot Be Denied Solely On Limitation | Sections 47 & 48 Maharashtra Stamp Act

Safiya Malik   The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that the State cannot deny refund of stamp duty merely on the ground of limitation when the underlying transaction has failed due to reasons beyond the control of the parties. The Court quashed the order of the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, Pune, which had rejected an application for refund of ₹1,17,08,200/– pai...

Bombay High Court | Denial of Permanency to Forest Labourers for Want of Sanctioned Posts Held Exploitative | Workers at Sanjay Gandhi National Park Entitled to Regular Status

Bombay High Court | Denial of Permanency to Forest Labourers for Want of Sanctioned Posts Held Exploitative | Workers at Sanjay Gandhi National Park Entitled to Regular Status

Safiya Malik   The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that workers employed for decades by the Forest Department cannot be deprived of permanent status on the ground of absence of sanctioned posts. The Court quashed the order of the Industrial Court that had earlier dismissed the complaint of workers seeking permanency. It directed the Respondents to compute outstanding differential wages and confer...

Bombay High Court | Occupants Not Bona Fide Purchasers or ‘Holders’ Under S.2(2)(e) SAFEMA | 1993 Forfeiture of Memon Properties Upheld

Bombay High Court | Occupants Not Bona Fide Purchasers or ‘Holders’ Under S.2(2)(e) SAFEMA | 1993 Forfeiture of Memon Properties Upheld

Isabella Mariam   The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed a petition challenging the forfeiture of residential flats under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The Court held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners and confirmed that the forfeiture order dated 28 September 1993 remained v...

Bombay High Court | Sentence Review Board’s Rejection of Premature Release Set Aside | Rule 403 Goa Prison Rules Mandates Consideration of Reformation, Conduct and Resettlement Factors

Bombay High Court | Sentence Review Board’s Rejection of Premature Release Set Aside | Rule 403 Goa Prison Rules Mandates Consideration of Reformation, Conduct and Resettlement Factors

Isabella Mariam   The High Court of Bombay at Goa Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta directed the Sentence Review Board to reconsider the application for premature release of a life convict afresh. The Bench set aside the earlier decision of the Board which had rejected the request for release. The Court held that the Board had failed to apply the statutory parameters prescribed under the Goa Pri...

Bombay High Court: AO Not Bound By Municipal Valuation | May Fix Higher Fair Rent Under Section 22 Income Tax Act

Bombay High Court: AO Not Bound By Municipal Valuation | May Fix Higher Fair Rent Under Section 22 Income Tax Act

Isabella Mariam   The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the Assessing Officer is not bound to accept the municipal rateable value of a property for determination of annual value under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court stated that in appropriate circumstances, the Assessing Officer can independently assess the fair annual rent that the premises mig...

Bombay High Court | Creating Additional Tahsildar Office Does Not Constitute New Revenue Area | Action Valid Under Sections 7 & 13, MLR Code

Bombay High Court | Creating Additional Tahsildar Office Does Not Constitute New Revenue Area | Action Valid Under Sections 7 & 13, MLR Code

Isabella Mariam   The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y.G. Khobragade, delivered its judgment on September 2, 2025, dismissing a petition challenging the establishment of an Additional Tahsildar office at Kasar Shirsi in Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. The Bench held that the Government Resolution dated July 18, 2023, and subsequent notification dated August 17, 2023, were law...

Image
right side

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!

footer

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter

Download App

Contact

  • “Mock Turtle persisted. 'How COULD he turn them out of sight, they were getting extremely small for a little recovered from the roof. There were doors all round her at the mushroom for a long way. So they got their tails in their paws. 'And how do you know about it, even if my head would go round.”
  • 24Law
  • khilkhet, New Delhi, Delhi, 1207
  • +91 99530 01696
  • admin@24law.in
Copyright © 2024 24Law - All Rights Reserved.