Talk:Bombay High Court

India: Dadra and Nagar Haveli / Daman and Diu / Goa / Maharashtra / Mumbai High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Dadra and Nagar Haveli (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Daman and Diu (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Goa (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mumbai (assessed as High-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Building

This an awful lot about the building, and very little about the court. Goa says that Mumbai is the judicial capital of the state of Goa because it falls under the authority of this court. What other places outside of Maharashtra fall under this court's authority? --Eric Forste 03:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Union territory of Daman and Diu. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 05:26 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I have looked a number of the sources for this section and they seem to all have their roots in the allegations of the petitioners in a court proceeding unsupported by any other source. There are a couple of online newspaper articles that seem to be pretty much quoting the same press release, likely form the petitioners as well. The fact that no source other than those which flow from the parties making the allegations seems to me to warrant deletion of this entire section. Even if the material did have a verifiable source, wikipedia is not the place for litigants to plead their cases, which is what seems to be going on here. I propose the deletion of the entire section. What are the thoughts of other editors? --KenWalker | Talk 06:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four paragraphs in another language

Need to be translated, or deleted. Utkarshk5 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where the humans located

vehd 103.99.8.143 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many lawyers are there

213456 103.99.8.143 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]