| 1 | ‘K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v Union of India | 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 970; 2024 (4) Mh.L.J. 625; 2024:BHC-AS:15632-DB | Motor vehicles; public law; statutory interpretation | R.V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate, with D.P. Singh and Shaba Khan, appeared for the Union of India in PIL No. 130 of 2022; R.V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate, with Shaba Khan, appeared for the Union of India in Writ Petition No. 11380 of 2017. | A Division Bench considered the validity of additional fees charged under Rules 32 and 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for delayed applications concerning driving licences and vehicle registration. The Court held that the additional fee was not a penalty and that Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorised the Central Government to prescribe it. The petitions challenging the levy were dismissed. |
|
| 2 | Kumar Builder v Kumar City Residents Co-operative Housing Society Ltd | (2021) 1 HCC (Bom) 177 | Civil procedure; consent decrees; co-operative housing | Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, with Mihir Govilkar, instructed by Govilkar & Associates LLP, appeared for the applicants | The Court examined whether a separate suit challenging a consent decree was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that the reliefs in the later suit were founded principally on the challenge to the consent decree, allowed the civil revision application, set aside the trial court's order and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 |
|
| 3 | Hanumant Mahadev Bhosale v All India Council for Technical Education | 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2358 | Technical education; service law; AICTE pay scales | Mihir R. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 3, the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, in Writ Petition No. 2324 of 2014. | A three-Judge Bench answered a reference concerning the application of AICTE pay scales to teaching and non-teaching employees of technical schools governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools framework. It held that the decision in Mahadeo More did not govern technical-school employees and that amendment of Schedule C was not necessary to make AICTE-recommended pay scales applicable |
|
| 4 | Anand Sadashiv Pranjape v Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation | 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 2234 | Public law; licences; due process | Rajshekhar V. Govilkar appeared for the petitioner | The Court considered the forcible dispossession of a licensee from a stall while the licence remained subsisting. It held that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, as State within Article 12 of the Constitution, was required to act fairly and could not dispossess the petitioner without due process. Restorative interim relief was granted |
|
| 5 | Bombay Environmental Action Group v State of Maharashtra | 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2680 | Environmental law; mangroves; public interest litigation | Rajshekhar V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 3 in PIL No. 87 of 2006 | This group of public interest proceedings concerned the protection of mangroves across Maharashtra. The Court addressed the regulatory framework governing mangrove areas, the public trust doctrine and the duties of public authorities, and issued continuing directions for identification, protection and enforcement. The appearance should be stated exactly and should not suggest that counsel represented the petitioners |
|
| 6 | Kamal K Singh v Union of India | 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5609 | Insolvency; NCLT procedure; judicial orders | Rajshekhar V. Govilkar with Dhanesh R. Shah, Shaba Khan and Kinjal Jani appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 | The Court considered the legal effect of an NCLT order that had not been pronounced or declared in the manner required by law. It held that the impugned order was a nullity, quashed the order and the consequential steps, and directed that the Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code application be heard afresh on its merits |
|
| 7 | Laya Binaykumar Pandey v Medical Council of India | 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 620 | Medical education; delegated legislation; university regulations | R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 6 in the group of petitions | The Court considered the relationship between a university ordinance and the Medical Council of India Regulations governing assessment in medical examinations. It held that Rule 57(D), insofar as it treated internal assessment as an independent head of passing, was inconsistent with Regulation 12 and therefore ultra vires. The University was directed to recalculate the marks accordingly |
|
| 8 | Maharashtra Federation of University and College Teachers Organisation v State of Maharashtra | 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6820 | Higher education; service law; NET and SET qualifications | R.V. Govilkar appeared for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2009, one of the connected matters | In a large group of petitions, the Court considered NET and SET qualifications, Career Advancement Scheme benefits, UGC norms and constitutional challenges. It upheld the State Government Resolution dated 27 June 2013 and clarified the benefits available to teachers appointed during the relevant period who had not acquired NET or SET qualifications |
|
| 9 | Natrajan Chandran v Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd | 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 557 | Co-operative law; secured recovery; property | R.V. Govilkar with A.I. Patel, instructed by I.A. Patel, appeared for the petitioner | The Court held that a proposed purchaser who had not acquired title or possession could not create a mortgage over the owner's industrial gala. The co-operative bank's attachment and dispossession of the owner in execution of an award against the proposed purchaser were held illegal. The petition was allowed, costs were awarded and possession was directed to be restored |
|
| 10 | Naval Raghunath Adsul v Deepak Raghunath Adsul | 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1529 | Testamentary law; wills; succession | R.V. Govilkar with Shaba N. Khan appeared for Defendant No. 1 | In a contested testamentary suit, the Court examined due execution and attestation of a registered will, testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances and an alleged family arrangement. The Court held that the plaintiff had proved the will and testamentary capacity, rejected the defendants' objections and ordered the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed |
|
| 11 | Navi Mumbai Environment Preservation Society v Ministry of Environment | 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 4074 | Environmental law; wetlands; development planning | R.V. Govilkar with Parag Vyas appeared for Respondent No. 8 | The Court addressed the protection of wetlands, mangroves and lakes in Navi Mumbai, and the proposed golf course and residential development on identified pockets. It quashed the impugned notification, restrained the proposed work in the protected areas and continued specified interim directions as final directions. The appearance should be stated without implying representation of the petitioners |
|
| 12 | Ramesh Laxman Sonawane v Meenaxi Ramesh Sonawane | 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1373 | Family law; matrimonial cruelty; appellate proceedings | R.V. Govilkar appeared for the appellant | The Division Bench considered an appeal from the refusal of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On a detailed assessment of the pleadings and evidence concerning cruelty, the Court set aside the Family Court's decree and dissolved the marriage |
|
| 13 | Sakinaben Fakir Mohammed Sayani v State of Maharashtra | 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6591 | Slum redevelopment; acquisition; property | R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 3 | The petition challenged acquisition proceedings under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act. The Court considered the ownership record, notice and objections raised to the acquisition, dismissed the petition, and clarified that the petitioners could participate in compensation proceedings and seek enhancement in accordance with law |
|
| 14 | Shailesh Narayan Shinde v Chetan Vitthal Tupe | 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1092 | Election law; municipal elections; nomination scrutiny | S.G. Aney, Senior Advocate, with R.V. Govilkar and Ujwala Sawant appeared for Respondent No. 1 in LPA No. 115 of 2009 and Respondent No. 3 in LPA No. 116 of 2009 | The Division Bench considered whether rejection of nomination papers for want of satisfactory proof of the candidate's name in the electoral roll involved a minor or substantial defect. It upheld the Election Returning Officer's scrutiny and the Single Judge's ultimate decision, and dismissed the appeals |
|
| 15 | Sitaram Moreshwar Sutar alias Shiposkar v Shantaram Moreshwar Sutar | 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 12078 | Property; agricultural holdings; Fragmentation Act | R.V. Govilkar, instructed by Smita Mhatre, appeared for the appellant | The Court considered the effect of a certificate issued under Section 24 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. It held that the certificate established the plaintiff's exclusive ownership, set aside the first appellate judgment and restored the trial court's judgment |
|
| 16 | Union of India v State Trading Corporation Ltd | 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1277 | Railways; insurance; commercial claims | R.V. Govilkar with A.A. Motwani appeared for New India Assurance Co. Ltd | A group of first appeals raised common questions concerning notice under Section 78-B of the Railways Act, 1890 and liability for compensation claims. The Court examined the sufficiency and effect of notices, confirmed decrees against Central Railway, set aside decrees against certain other railway administrations and standardised interest at six per cent in the identified appeals |
|
| 17 | Vikas Kamlakar Walawalkar v Salt Commissioner | 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1294 | Property; government land; leases; salt lands | R.V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate, with Gauraj Shah, Mihir Govilkar and Shaba Khan, instructed by Rahul Tiwari, appeared for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 | The Court considered title and possessory rights in salt lands, the governing lease, the powers of the Salt Department and the claim to renewal. It dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs and directed that vacant and peaceful possession of the salt lands be handed over to Defendant No. 1 within three months |
|
| 18 | Harishchandra Narayan Maurya v Rajendraprasad Dargahi Varma | 1996 SCC OnLine Bom 311; 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 437 | Civil procedure; injunctions; restoration of possession | R.V. Govilkar appeared for the respondent | The Court held that Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 are not exhaustive and that a court may use its powers under Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore possession where a party used an interim injunction to dispossess the opponent. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's restorative order was upheld |
|
| 19 | Padmaja Pramod Shirgaonkar v Sharad D Mane | 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 18770 | Co-operative societies; Section 88 inquiry; procedural fairness | Mihir R. Govilkar, instructed by Govilkar & Associates LLP, appeared for the petitioners | The petitions arose from charges framed in an inquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Without deciding the maintainability of the earlier appeals, the Court directed that relevant documents be furnished, permitted a detailed reply, required the charges to be reframed after considering the replies, and fixed a timetable for completing the inquiry |
|
| 20 | Arjandas Teckchand Kashyap v Pooja Jaiprakash Pamnani | 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1594 | Arbitration; appointment of arbitrator; limitation | R.V. Govilkar with B. Pawar appeared for Respondent No. 5 | The Court considered an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act following the death of the previously appointed arbitrator. It appointed a substitute sole arbitrator, left the limitation issue open for adjudication by the arbitral tribunal, and rejected objections to the earlier appointment orders |
|
| 21 | Domnic Alex Fernandes v Union of India | 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1471 | SAFEMA; forfeiture; public premises | R.V. Govilkar with Sarang Aradhye appeared for the petitioners | The Court considered forfeiture and eviction under Sections 7(3) and 19 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. It held that forfeited property vested in the Central Government free from encumbrances and that separate proceedings under the Public Premises legislation were unnecessary. The petition was dismissed, with limited time granted to vacate |
|
| 22 | Dr D Y Patil Vidyapeeth Deemed University v Maharashtra University of Health Sciences | 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4869 | Medical education; admissions; common entrance tests | R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 1, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences | The Court considered admission of students drawn from different common entrance test lists against vacant BDS seats. It set aside the impugned communications, permitted reconsideration by the competent authority and directed the University to accept examination forms and issue hall tickets. The judgment also urged a policy for filling vacant seats before the admission deadline |
|
| 23 | Govind Abaji Kaspate v Principal Secretary Urban Development Department | 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8266 | Town planning; development plans; Section 37 MRTP Act | R.V. Govilkar with M.R. Govilkar appeared for the petitioners | The petition challenged a modification to the alignment of a road in a sanctioned development plan under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The Court held that the State Government had acted within the statutory limits, rejected the allegations of arbitrariness and breach of natural justice, and dismissed the petition |
|
| 24 | Jagdishprasad M Poddar v State of Maharashtra | 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 500 | Town planning; reservation lapse; acquisition | Rajshekhar V. Govilkar with Vandana Mahadik appeared for MCGM, Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 881 of 2015 and Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2015 | In connected petitions, the Court considered lapse of a development-plan reservation under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. It directed publication of the lapse and restrained continued treatment of the land as reserved, while dismissing the connected petition seeking acquisition and possession without a completed acquisition process |
|
| 25 | Keru Govind Jondhale v Mohamad Mohiddin Patel | 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 606 | Agricultural tenancy; possession; mesne profits | R.V. Govilkar held for V.D. Govilkar for Respondent Nos. 12, 12-C, 13, 14 to 18, 20 and 21 | The Court examined long-standing possession entries and the protection of cultivators under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It held that the petitioners had been unlawfully dispossessed after the tiller's day, directed restoration of the land and ordered calculation and recovery of mesne profits from the persons in possession |
|
| 26 | Kumar Gorakhnath Shinde v Wider Church Ministries | 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 761 | Specific relief; possession; civil revision | R.V. Govilkar appeared for the respondents | The Court considered a summary suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It held that the plaintiff had established prior possession, that the defendant had not proved the source of its claimed possession, and that the trial court's findings disclosed no jurisdictional error. The civil revision application was dismissed |
|
| 27 | Maharashtra Medical Education and Research Centre v Union of India | 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5265 | Medical education; affiliation; regulatory coordination | R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 4, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences | The Court considered recognition and affiliation for a postgraduate medical course. It held that once the central statutory body had granted permission, the State and affiliating University could not frustrate it because of administrative delay or lack of coordination. The impugned University communication was set aside and provisional affiliation and a prompt inspection were directed |
|
| 28 | Rajendra G Kulkarni v State of Maharashtra | 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 4614 | Technical education; closure of institution; statutory procedure | R.V. Govilkar with Shaba N. Khan appeared for Respondent No. 4, the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education | Employees challenged the progressive closure of a polytechnic and the no-objection communication issued by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education. The Court held that the procedure mandated by Sections 35(3) and 35(4) of the governing Act had not been followed, quashed the impugned measures and directed that the resulting consequences follow |
|
| 29 | Neelima Sadanand Vartak v State of Maharashtra | 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 960 | Criminal procedure; appointment of public prosecutors; public law | C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate, with R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 8 | The Court examined the statutory consultation required by Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when appointing a Public Prosecutor. It found that the prescribed process had not been followed, set aside the appointment and directed the State and District Magistrate to undertake a fresh selection process |
|
| 30 | Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v Suhas Shridhar Rane | 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 896 | Municipal law; service accommodation; eviction | R.V. Govilkar with Shaba N. Khan appeared for Respondent No. 1 | The Court considered termination of licences for municipal service accommodation and the scope of the appellate authority's interference with an eviction order. It held that the notices had to be read reasonably, found the occupation unauthorised after termination of service and licence, and restored the Estate Officer's eviction order |
|
| 31 | Om Sai Darshan Co-operative Housing Society v State of Maharashtra | 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 480 | Slum rehabilitation; majority consent; redevelopment | R.V. Govilkar with M.B. Jadhav and L.N. Bedekar appeared for the petitioners | The Court considered competing proposals for a slum rehabilitation scheme. It held that, once a scheme supported by the statutory majority had been approved, minority members could not insist upon a separate society or developer, though eligible occupants retained the right to permanent accommodation. The petition was rejected |
|
| 32 | Prateek Chandrashekhar Patil v State of Maharashtra | 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 4031 | Medical education; postgraduate admissions; university results | Rajshekhar V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 3, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, in both petitions | The Court considered postgraduate medical students whose names had not been forwarded to the authorities despite merit-based admission and completion of their courses. It held that the case did not involve an increase in intake capacity, allowed the petitions and directed issuance of the relevant degree-completion certificates |
|
| 33 | Ramesh Suresh Kamble v State of Maharashtra | 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1078 | Caste validity; electoral disqualification; municipal law | Varsha Palav with R.V. Govilkar appeared for the petitioner | A three-Judge Bench considered the consequence of cancellation of a caste certificate under the Maharashtra legislation governing caste claims. It held that cancellation by the Scrutiny Committee carries the implicit conclusion that the certificate was based on a false claim or declaration, resulting in electoral disqualification. The petition was dismissed |
|
| 34 | Ravi Shinde v Medical Council of India | 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1115 | Medical education; examination eligibility; MCI regulations | R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 2 | The Court interpreted Regulation 7(7) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. It held that the prescribed eighteen months of study before the second MBBS professional examination was mandatory and could not be diluted by combining periods before and after the student cleared the first MBBS examination. The petition was dismissed |
|
| 35 | Sagiruddin Israiluddin Mistry v State of Maharashtra | 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1241 | Caste validity; municipal elections; electoral relief | R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 5, the main contesting respondent | The Court upheld the invalidation of the petitioners' caste claim, found manipulation of the supporting record and declared the returned candidate disqualified. Applying Section 33(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, it declared Respondent No. 5, who had secured the next highest number of valid votes in the reserved ward, elected |
|
| 36 | Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh v Commissioner for Co-operative Societies | 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1716 | Co-operative bank liquidation; employee dues; natural justice | R.V. Govilkar, instructed by Suhas S. Inamdar, appeared for Respondent No. 2 | The Court considered the treatment and priority of employee claims during liquidation of a co-operative bank. It set aside the Commissioner's communication because the affected employees had not been heard and no adequate reasons had been given, and directed a fresh, reasoned adjudication after hearing the relevant representatives |
|
| 37 | Shasakiya Nimshasakiya Aushadh Nirmata Mishrak Sanghatana v Secretary Pharmacy Council of India | 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8985 | Pharmacy law; registration; service consequences | R.V. Govilkar appeared for Respondent No. 2 | The Court considered Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the position of employees working without the prescribed registration. It rejected the petition but clarified that no listed employee could be terminated or reverted without a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing under the applicable service rules |
|
| 38 | Sudhir Yashwant Mandke v Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar | 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 14905 | MOFA; deemed conveyance; title and development rights | Rafique Dada, Senior Advocate, with Shripad Khurjekar, S. Khan and Mihir R. Govilkar, instructed by R.V. Govilkar, appeared for the petitioner | The Court considered a deemed conveyance certificate under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and competing claims concerning title, FSI and TDR. It declined to interfere because those disputes were already raised in a civil suit, clarified that the competent authority's findings would not bind the civil court, and disposed of the petition accordingly |
|
| 39 | Vilas Pandurang Markande v Regional Labour Commissioner | 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 5132 | Labour law; Section 33-C(1); recovery of dues | R.V. Govilkar with D.P. Singh appeared for Respondent No. 1, Union of India | The Court considered recovery under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether adjustment of long-standing payments against leave wages would be inequitable. It quashed the Labour Commissioner's order, directed issuance of a recovery certificate and required payment of the quantified leave wages |
|
