Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Against Private Developer for Alternate Permanent Accommodation — “Developer Not ‘State’ Under Article 12; Dispute Is Private and Contractual, No Writ Under Article 226 Lies”

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Against Private Developer for Alternate Permanent Accommodation — “Developer Not ‘State’ Under Article 12; Dispute Is Private and Contractual, No Writ Under Article 226 Lies”

Court’s Decision The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions against a private developer for executing individual supplementary agreements for alternate permanent accommodation and compensation. The Court held…
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wildlife Contraband Case Involving 23 Kg of Tiger Bones and 5 Skulls; Reduces Sentence to 3 Years: “Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Still Holds the Field” — Poaching Not Proven, Fine Directed to Animal Welfare Board

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wildlife Contraband Case Involving 23 Kg of Tiger Bones and 5 Skulls; Reduces Sentence to 3 Years: “Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Still Holds the Field” — Poaching Not Proven, Fine Directed to Animal Welfare Board

Court’s Decision The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, while reducing their…
Bombay High Court Holds Rejection of Compassionate Pension Arbitrary: “Absenteeism Not a Disentitling Misconduct, Petitioner’s Condition Warrants Special Consideration” — Directs Mumbai Port Authority to Grant Pension Under MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965

Bombay High Court Holds Rejection of Compassionate Pension Arbitrary: “Absenteeism Not a Disentitling Misconduct, Petitioner’s Condition Warrants Special Consideration” — Directs Mumbai Port Authority to Grant Pension Under MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965

Court’s Decision The Bombay High Court quashed the decision of the Mumbai Port Authority rejecting the petitioner’s request for compassionate pension and retirement benefits. It held that the petitioner was…