SOU. KALPANA SURAJ JAGTAP vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THOU PRINCIPAL SECREATARY, HOME DEPT Advocate - GP WRIT CELL — WP/8899/2021

Case under Constitution of India. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010140302021

Filing Number

WP/7917/2021

Filing Date

25-Mar-2021

Registration No

WP/8899/2021

Registration Date

13-Dec-2021

Judge

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre , Hon'ble Justice Smt Manjusha Ajay Deshpande

Coram

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre , Hon'ble Justice Smt Manjusha Ajay Deshpande

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India
The Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workpalce(prevention,prohibition and Redressal) Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SOU. KALPANA SURAJ JAGTAP

    Adv. Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THOU PRINCIPAL SECREATARY, HOME DEPT Advocate - GP WRIT CELL

  2. 2.THE MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD THOU ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

    Adv. S S Panchpor

  3. 3.SURAJ RAMAKANT NAIK

    Adv. Pratibha Gavhane

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre,hon'ble Justice Smt Manjusha Ajay DeshpandeView PDF

    Summary of WP 8899/2021 Kalpana Suraj Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra & Others The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Maritime Board's July 2012 sexual harassment inquiry report that exonerated her superior officer. The court found the modified inquiry procedure valid because it addressed the accused's legitimate grievance about lack of procedural fairness in the first inquiry (which found substance in allegations), and the reconstituted proceedings allowed both parties equal opportunity to present evidence before reaching a contrary conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre,hon'ble Justice Smt Manjusha Ajay DeshpandeView PDF

  4. 02-Jul-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  5. 22-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  6. 22-Apr-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  7. 12-Feb-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  8. 11-Feb-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  9. 29-Jan-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  10. 14-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  11. 14-Nov-2024

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  12. 13-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  13. 19-Aug-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  14. 19-Aug-2024

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  15. 22-Jul-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  16. 22-Jul-2024

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  17. 27-Jun-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  18. 27-Jun-2024

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  19. 02-May-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  20. 02-May-2024

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  21. 19-Mar-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  22. 19-Mar-2024

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  23. 06-Feb-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  24. 12-Sep-2023

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Justice Smt Manjusha Ajay Deshpande , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  25. 17-Aug-2023

    Hon'ble Justice Smt Manjusha Ajay Deshpande,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  26. 17-Aug-2023

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne , Hon'ble Shri Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur

  27. 20-Jul-2023

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne,hon'ble Shri Justice Dhiraj Singh ThakurView PDF

  28. 19-Jun-2023

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  29. 17-Apr-2023

    Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  30. 30-Jan-2023

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar

  31. 19-Dec-2022

    Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice S. G. ChapalgaonkarView PDF

  32. 15-Nov-2022

    For Admission

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  33. 11-Feb-2022

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak , Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale

  34. 14-Dec-2021

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak,hon'ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. VaraleView PDF

  35. 14-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 25-Mar-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/8899/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WP 8899/2021 Kalpana Suraj Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra & Others The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Maritime Board's July 2012 sexual harassment inquiry report that exonerated her superior officer. The court found the modified inquiry procedure valid because it addressed the accused's legitimate grievance about lack of procedural fairness in the first inquiry (which found substance in allegations), and the reconstituted proceedings allowed both parties equal opportunity to present evidence before reaching a contrary conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case