Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments
  • Acts

Bombay High Court Case Commentaries

Unified Industrial Establishment: A Landmark Decision in Tulsidas Khimji v. F. Jeejeebhoy

Unified Industrial Establishment: A Landmark Decision in Tulsidas Khimji v. F. Jeejeebhoy

Date: Apr 15, 1960
Unified Industrial Establishment: A Landmark Decision in Tulsidas Khimji v. F. Jeejeebhoy Introduction Tulsidas Khimji v. F. Jeejeebhoy, adjudicated by the Bombay High Court on April 14, 1960, is a...
Necessary Joinder of Candidates in Election Petitions: Baburao Tatyaji Bhonsale v. Madhav Shrihari Aney

Necessary Joinder of Candidates in Election Petitions: Baburao Tatyaji Bhonsale v. Madhav Shrihari Aney

Date: Apr 7, 1960
Necessary Joinder of Candidates in Election Petitions: Baburao Tatyaji Bhonsale v. Madhav Shrihari Aney Introduction The case of Baburao Tatyaji Bhonsale v. Madhav Shrihari Aney is a landmark...
Interpretation of Section 33B Limitation Clause in Revisional Orders: The Case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Solanki

Interpretation of Section 33B Limitation Clause in Revisional Orders: The Case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Solanki

Date: Apr 7, 1960
Interpretation of Section 33B Limitation Clause in Revisional Orders: The Case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Solanki Introduction The case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad v....
Rebates Not Classified as Commission under Section 10(4)(b): Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Rebates Not Classified as Commission under Section 10(4)(b): Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Date: Apr 5, 1960
Rebates Not Classified as Commission under Section 10(4)(b): Harihar Cotton Pressing Factory v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad Introduction The case of Harihar Cotton Pressing...
Affirmation of the Real Income Principle within the Annual Tax Structure: H.M Kashiparekh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Affirmation of the Real Income Principle within the Annual Tax Structure: H.M Kashiparekh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Date: Apr 3, 1960
Affirmation of the Real Income Principle within the Annual Tax Structure H.M Kashiparekh And Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay North, Kutch And Saurashtra, Baroda Court: Bombay High...
Clarifying Limitation Periods for Section 18 Applications in Land Acquisition: Jankibai Tukaram v. Nagpur Improvement Trust

Clarifying Limitation Periods for Section 18 Applications in Land Acquisition: Jankibai Tukaram v. Nagpur Improvement Trust

Date: Mar 10, 1960
Clarifying Limitation Periods for Section 18 Applications in Land Acquisition: Jankibai Tukaram v. Nagpur Improvement Trust Introduction The case of Jankibai Tukaram v. Nagpur Improvement Trust,...
Strict Interpretation of Section 17(4) in Land Acquisition: Navnitlal Ranchhodlal v. State Of Bombay

Strict Interpretation of Section 17(4) in Land Acquisition: Navnitlal Ranchhodlal v. State Of Bombay

Date: Mar 9, 1960
Strict Interpretation of Section 17(4) in Land Acquisition: Navnitlal Ranchhodlal v. State Of Bombay Introduction The case of Navnitlal Ranchhodlal v. State Of Bombay adjudicated by the Bombay High...
Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code: Insights from Anjanabai Yeshwantrao v. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe

Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code: Insights from Anjanabai Yeshwantrao v. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe

Date: Feb 18, 1960
Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code: Insights from Anjanabai Yeshwantrao v. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe Introduction The case of Anjanabai...
Establishing Railway Liability under Sections 74-A and 74-C of the Railways Act: Ramkrishna Ramnath Shop v. Union of India and Others

Establishing Railway Liability under Sections 74-A and 74-C of the Railways Act: Ramkrishna Ramnath Shop v. Union of India and Others

Date: Jan 12, 1960
Establishing Railway Liability under Sections 74-A and 74-C of the Railways Act: Ramkrishna Ramnath Shop v. Union of India and Others Introduction The case of Ramkrishna Ramnath Shop, Through...
Natural Justice in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings: Insights from Valimohammed Gulamhusain Sonavala & Co. v. C.T.A Pillai

Natural Justice in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings: Insights from Valimohammed Gulamhusain Sonavala & Co. v. C.T.A Pillai

Date: Dec 19, 1959
Natural Justice in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings: Insights from Valimohammed Gulamhusain Sonavala & Co. v. C.T.A Pillai Introduction The case of Messrs Valimohammed Gulamhusain Sonavala & Co. v. C.T.A...
Distinguishing Between Joint Hindu Family and Partnership Firms: Shriram Sardarmal Didwani v. Gourishankar Joharmal

Distinguishing Between Joint Hindu Family and Partnership Firms: Shriram Sardarmal Didwani v. Gourishankar Joharmal

Date: Dec 16, 1959
Distinguishing Between Joint Hindu Family and Partnership Firms: Shriram Sardarmal Didwani v. Gourishankar Joharmal Introduction Shriram Sardarmal Didwani v. Gourishankar Joharmal is a pivotal...
Legal Precedents on Hindu Widow's Property Alienation: Ramji Batanji v. Manohar Chintaman

Legal Precedents on Hindu Widow's Property Alienation: Ramji Batanji v. Manohar Chintaman

Date: Nov 21, 1959
Legal Precedents on Hindu Widow's Property Alienation: Ramji Batanji v. Manohar Chintaman Introduction The case of Ramji Batanji v. Manohar Chintaman adjudicated by the Bombay High Court on November...
Gopal Mayaji Parab v. T.C Seth: Defining 'Persons Concerned' in Customs Offenses

Gopal Mayaji Parab v. T.C Seth: Defining 'Persons Concerned' in Customs Offenses

Date: Nov 7, 1959
Gopal Mayaji Parab v. T.C Seth: Defining 'Persons Concerned' in Customs Offenses Introduction The case of Gopal Mayaji Parab and Another v. T.C Seth and Another was adjudicated by the Bombay High...
Mohanlal Prabhuram v. Fine Knitting Mills Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad: High Court Upholds Employee's Workmen's Compensation Claim

Mohanlal Prabhuram v. Fine Knitting Mills Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad: High Court Upholds Employee's Workmen's Compensation Claim

Date: Oct 15, 1959
Mohanlal Prabhuram v. Fine Knitting Mills Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad: High Court Upholds Employee's Workmen's Compensation Claim Introduction The case of Mohanlal Prabhuram v. Fine Knitting Mills Co. Ltd.,...
Clarifying Signature and Verification Standards in Pleadings: Insights from All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar

Clarifying Signature and Verification Standards in Pleadings: Insights from All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar

Date: Oct 1, 1959
Clarifying Signature and Verification Standards in Pleadings: Insights from All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar Introduction The case of All India Reporter Ltd. v. Ramchandra Dhondo...
Application of Damdupat Rule in Trustee Liability: Phulchand Lakhmichand Jain v. Hukumchand Gulabchand Jain

Application of Damdupat Rule in Trustee Liability: Phulchand Lakhmichand Jain v. Hukumchand Gulabchand Jain

Date: Sep 16, 1959
Application of Damdupat Rule in Trustee Liability: Phulchand Lakhmichand Jain v. Hukumchand Gulabchand Jain Introduction The case of Phulchand Lakhmichand Jain And Another v. Hukumchand Gulabchand...
Magistrate’s Authority to Mandate Charge-Sheets in Cognizable Offenses: Analyzing State And Others v. Murlidhar Govardhan And Others

Magistrate’s Authority to Mandate Charge-Sheets in Cognizable Offenses: Analyzing State And Others v. Murlidhar Govardhan And Others

Date: Sep 3, 1959
Magistrate’s Authority to Mandate Charge-Sheets in Cognizable Offenses: Analyzing State And Others v. Murlidhar Govardhan And Others Introduction The case of State And Others v. Murlidhar Govardhan...
Admissibility of Written Complaints Expressing Apprehension under the Indian Evidence Act: Allijan Munshi v. State

Admissibility of Written Complaints Expressing Apprehension under the Indian Evidence Act: Allijan Munshi v. State

Date: Aug 25, 1959
Admissibility of Written Complaints Expressing Apprehension under the Indian Evidence Act: Allijan Munshi v. State Introduction The case of Allijan Munshi, Accused v. State, adjudicated by the Bombay...
Interpretation of Appealability under Section 28 of the Indian Divorce Act: Prithyirajsinhji Mansinghji v. Bai Shivprabhakumari (1959)

Interpretation of Appealability under Section 28 of the Indian Divorce Act: Prithyirajsinhji Mansinghji v. Bai Shivprabhakumari (1959)

Date: Aug 12, 1959
Interpretation of Appealability under Section 28 of the Indian Divorce Act: Prithyirajsinhji Mansinghji v. Bai Shivprabhakumari (1959) Introduction The case of Prithyirajsinhji Mansinghji v. Bai...
Defining Serious Misconduct for Railway Servants: Insights from Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur

Defining Serious Misconduct for Railway Servants: Insights from Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur

Date: Aug 8, 1959
Defining Serious Misconduct for Railway Servants: Insights from Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Introduction The case of Shardaprasad Onkarprasad...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert