<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawmatters.in &#187; High Court of Bombay</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawmatters.in/content/category/litigation/cases/high-court-of-bombay/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawmatters.in</link>
	<description>Things that matter in law and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:43:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Compensation for Railway Accident</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/compensation-for-railway-accident-468</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/compensation-for-railway-accident-468#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:12:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Bombay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/compensation-for-railway-accident-468.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 6, 2008, Justice S S Shinde of the Bombay High Court held that Premchand Jakharia and Laxmiben Jakharia whose son died after he fell off a train are entitled to compensation of 400000 INR with interest at the &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/compensation-for-railway-accident-468">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/compensation-for-railway-accident-468/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Flasher Fined</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/flasher-fined-459</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/flasher-fined-459#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 07:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Bombay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Provisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/flasher-fined-459.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A trial Court imposed a fine of 3000 INR on Shivram Hambare, an employee of the Government Security Press in Nashik for flashing his penis before his female neighbour after an argument. Justice RY Ganoo of the Bombay High Court &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/flasher-fined-459">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/flasher-fined-459/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank Account not Frozen</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/bank-account-not-frozen-445</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/bank-account-not-frozen-445#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Bombay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/bank-account-not-frozen-445.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Generally, in the case of economic offences, bank accounts of the accused remain frozen till the trial is over. However, the ToI reports that Justice Kumbhakoni of the Bombay High Court decided to de-freeze the account of one Shaukatali Khan &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/bank-account-not-frozen-445">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/bank-account-not-frozen-445/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maintenance under the CrPC</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/maintenance-under-the-crpc-443</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/maintenance-under-the-crpc-443#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Bombay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage and Divorce]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/maintenance-under-the-crpc-443.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier, there was a limit to the amount of maintenance payable under the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, an amendment to Section 125 removed this limit and the maintenance which can be ordered under this Section is no longer limited &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/maintenance-under-the-crpc-443">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/maintenance-under-the-crpc-443/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shareholder Initiates Action</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/shareholder-initiates-action-441</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/shareholder-initiates-action-441#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 12:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Bombay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/shareholder-initiates-action-441.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sify.com reports that in the Genelec case, the Bombay High Court upheld the right of a shareholder (Nirad Mehta) to initiate legal on behalf of a company if wrong-doers are in control of it. Three of the directors of the &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/shareholder-initiates-action-441">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/shareholder-initiates-action-441/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act Extended</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/benefit-of-the-juvenile-justice-act-extended-295</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/benefit-of-the-juvenile-justice-act-extended-295#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 12:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Bombay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/benefit-of-the-juvenile-justice-act-extended-295.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A judgment of the Bombay High Court delivered on May 2, 2008 by Justices F I Rebello and K U Chandiwal has changed the law with reference to juvenile offenders. The ruling extends the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/benefit-of-the-juvenile-justice-act-extended-295">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/benefit-of-the-juvenile-justice-act-extended-295/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cruelty : A Non-Compoundable Offence</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/cruelty-a-noncompoundable-offence-54</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/cruelty-a-noncompoundable-offence-54#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:36:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Bombay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/cruelty--a-noncompoundable-offence-54.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Abasaheb Yadav Honmane versus The State of Maharashtra and Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane Judgment delivered on: March 12, 2008 An offence of cruelty under IPC 498-A is not merely a &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/cruelty-a-noncompoundable-offence-54">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/cruelty-a-noncompoundable-offence-54/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

