Case Study

In a landmark ruling that exposes systemic misuse of authority within the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), the Bombay High Court has quashed hundreds of notices issued under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHAD Act). The judgment, delivered on July 28, 2025, by Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor, highlights a "colossal abuse of powers" by MHADA's Executive Engineers.

केरळ उच्च न्यायालयाने निरीक्षण केले की BNSS च्या कलम 179(1) अंतर्गत पोलिसांना दिलेले अधिकार इतके वाढवता येणार नाहीत की ते एखाद्या आरोपीच्या वकिलाला बोलावू शकतील आणि त्याने क्लायंटसोबत केलेली गोपनीय चर्चा उघड करण्यास भाग पाडू शकतील.

This landmark case will shape, the future of IBC, Arbitration Act, CPC, and Limitation Act and also clarified how these provisions are interconnected and interlinked to each other and will be a lesson for all lawyers to take care of the pleadings, strategies and care while filing pleadings of the clients.

In view of above discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. OP (Bank of Baroda) is directed to pay Rs.65 crores with interest @9% per annum from the respective date of transfer of the money to it till the date of payment to the complainant, within two months from the date of this judgment.

The present Public Interest Litigation has been instituted for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, the State Government has framed the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Rules, 2009.

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a petition challenging certain provisions of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, which mandated the registration and regulation of clinical establishments in India. The primary contention was that these provisions were arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights of medical practitioners and patients.