Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 272Nominal IndexAnil Baburao Baile vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 229Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 230Surendra Gadling vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231Jhalak Constructions...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
Nominal Index
Anil Baburao Baile vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
Surendra Gadling vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Jhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Rahul Sudhindra Soni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre vs Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
Rubabuddin Shaikh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
Yuvraj Santrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
Rama Gunda Malkapure vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
Vaijenath Haridas Ambad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
Rohit Bandu Nikalje vs The Regional Officer, UIDAI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 246
Santosh Hiraman Lashkare vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
D S Textiles vs IIFL Finance Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
Maniar Ramesh Kumar vs CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
Kamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252
Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254
Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255
The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256
Geeta Kampani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 257
Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 258
Aditi Sanjaysingh Bais vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
KBC vs BSC, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
HRBK vs LRRK, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
Mayur Sakharam Sawant vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
Vinodkumar Chellappan Pillai vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 265
Shekhar Kakasaheb Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
Unaided Schools Forum vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 267
Mumbai Press Club vs Gurbir Singh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 268
Pradeep Rambhau Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 269
MKJ vs LMJ, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
N vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 271
Unilever Plc vs Ashok Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
Final Orders/Judgments:
Case Title: Anil Baburao Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 29) dismissed a petition seeking to review the judgment, by which the court upheld the validity of various provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In July 2025, the High Court had held that the Act can be construed to be 'deterrent' to the commission of unlawful activities, but by no stretch of imagination can it be equated with 'preventive detention.'
Case Title: Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
The Bombay High Court has directed an investigation into irregularities and illegal allotments of land in the Temghar Dam Project, and ordered that action be taken against officials responsible for such lapses. The Court observed that allotment of alternate land to project-affected persons was made without proper verification of entitlement and supporting records.
Case Title: Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Bombay High Court has held that permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation for repairs or alterations do not establish the legality of a structure, nor do they prove its existence prior to the relevant cut-off date. The Court observed that such permissions, in the absence of independent proof, cannot be relied upon to legitimise unauthorised constructions.
Bhima-Koregaon Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Surendra Gadling After 8 Years In Jail
Case Title: Surendra Gadling vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling, who is in prison from June 6, 2018 in Bhima-Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, considering his long incarceration. He is the last among the 16 persons named in the case to be in prison. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata dictated order in the open court granting bail to Gadling on usual conditions, as imposed by the special court on other co-accused like Hany Babu.
Case Title: Jhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court has held that permissions obtained from a Municipal Corporation by misrepresentation or submission of incorrect material are void and cannot be sustained in law. The Court observed that fraud vitiates all actions, and a party cannot take advantage of permissions secured by misleading the authority. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation revoking development permission granted to the petitioners for the construction of a multi-storey building under Section 51 of the MRTP Act. The Corporation had also directed the removal of the construction.
Case Title: Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court has held that an industrial dispute is deemed to remain “pending” under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act until 30 days after publication of the award, even if the dispute is factually settled. The Court clarified that during this statutory period, compliance with Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory for dismissal of a workman.
Case Title: Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
The Bombay High Court has held that the State cannot retain stamp duty paid under a wrong head merely on the ground that the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court observed that procedural timelines cannot defeat a substantive right, particularly where the State would otherwise unjustly enrich itself.
Case Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which transfers the power to issue adoption orders from courts to District Magistrates. The Court held that the change in forum does not violate constitutional principles and is aimed at expediting the adoption process.
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust against Sashidhar Jagdishan over alleged bribery. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Nitin Borkar noted that the instant FIR was triggered out of "personal vendetta." It also noted that the HDFC Bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the Trust and thus, in a counterblast, the instant FIR was lodged against the bank's CEO.
Case Title: Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
The Bombay High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Competent Authority cannot look into documents other than the Leave and License Agreement in a summary inquiry for eviction of a licensee. The Court observed that the inquiry under Sections 24 and 43 of the Act is restricted to examining whether the license period has expired, and that contractual arrangements contained in separate documents cannot be enforced before the Competent Authority.
Case Title: Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Rahul Sudhindra Soni
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
The Bombay High Court has held that an employee who resigns in breach of a service bond cannot insist that the employer must issue a relieving letter or experience certificate. The Court observed that when resignation is tendered contrary to contractual obligations under a valid service bond, the employer is justified in not accepting the resignation and consequently cannot be compelled to issue relieving or service certificates.
Case Title: Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre vs Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court while dismissing a son's appeal challenging the order of a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, directing him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to his aged mother and also quashing the gift deed, by which the mother relinquished her rights in the ancestral property, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 for 'dragging' the senior citizen into a 'multi-layered' and 'protracted' litigation.
Case Title: Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) denied bail to a man booked in the murder case of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddiqui, who was shot to death in broad daylight on October 12, 2024 at Mumbai's plush Bandra area. At least three assailants had opened fire against Siddiqui, while he was about to enter his car after meeting his son Zeeshan in Bandra East. A total of six bullets were fired at him, some of which hit him in abdomen and chest, due to which, he died. It is alleged that the Lawrence Bishnoi gang has conspired to kill Siddiqui.
Case Title: Rubabuddin Shaikh vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
The Bombay High Court while upholding the acquittal of the 22 policemen from Gujarat and Rajasthan in the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulasiram Prajapati, held that the prosecution's story of a 'conspiracy' to kill the trio after abducting them was not established and that the case rested solely on 'circumstantial' evidence, which too was not proved.
Case Title: Yuvraj Santrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
The Bombay High Court recently observed that when the State is extending financial assistance under welfare schemes such as the Ladki Bahin Yojana, it cannot deny or delay financial aid to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection without reasonable classification or justification.
Case Title: Rama Gunda Malkapure vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution cannot be defeated on the basis of erroneous revenue entries made during the implementation of a consolidation scheme. The Court observed that where landholders were not issued notice as required under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, delay in seeking correction of revenue entries cannot be used to deny restoration of their holdings.
Case Title: Vaijenath Haridas Ambad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
The Bombay High Court has held that teachers seeking promotion must possess TET/CTET qualification on the date of initiation of the promotion process and that subsequent clearance of the examination cannot be applied retrospectively to claim inclusion in an ongoing promotion process. The Court observed that merely appearing for the TET/CTET examination during the pendency of the promotion process does not create any vested right to seek consideration for promotion.
Case Title: Rohit Bandu Nikalje vs The Regional Officer, UIDAI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
The Bombay High Court while taking note of the increasing cases where citizens are compelled to approach courts on account of biometric mismatch, deactivation or suspension of Aadhar Cards, issued detailed guidelines ordering the authorities to adopt a 'citizen-centric' approach in dealing with such cases and also to ensure the grievances are redressed within four weeks. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar observed that in several such cases, genuine residents are made to run from one office to the another, without any resolution, which results in unnecessary hardships.
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 246
Invoking the famous couplet - Zara Hatke Zara Bachke, Ye Hai Bombai Meri Jaan! the Bombay High Court on Friday ordered constitution of a Committee to look into the 'abysmal' progress of town planning in the city of Mumbai and the failure of proper implementation of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act of 1971. A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna in a detailed judgment, pointed out various flaws in the implementation of the Slums Act and also the failures of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) along wit the Maharashtra Government and its bodies, in ensuring a 'slum-free' Mumbai even after 55 years of enacting the then ad-hoc Slums Act.
Case Title: Santosh Hiraman Lashkare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
In what could impact thousands of public servants in various departments across Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has upheld the powers of the State Government to order 're-assessment' and 'verification' of the medical certificates and the Unique Disability ID (UDID) cards. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri has held that obtaining a government job on the basis of a bogus UDID card, would amount to an 'immoral act' and such an employee can be removed from service on the ground of 'moral turpitude.'
Case Title: D S Textiles vs IIFL Finance Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
The Bombay High Court recently flagged the disturbing trend in arbitration matters, wherein non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) resort to appointing 'unilateral' arbitrators through 'institution' or 'algorithm-based' selection, which the court held to be illegal and against the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan in an order passed on April 30, noted that the IIFL had unilaterally appointed an arbitrator, a decision which was challenged before the court. The judge said that the NBFCs think that appointing an arbitrator unilaterally through an institution etc, would 'clean' the illegality.
Case Title: Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
The Bombay High Court has held that the Mediation Act, 2023, does not empower courts to compel parties to undergo mediation without their mutual consent. The Court clarified that mediation under the statutory framework is consensual in nature and cannot be imposed unilaterally.
Case Title: Maniar Ramesh Kumar vs CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the acquittal of 22 policemen from the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulasiram Prajapati, also dismissed an interim application which sought to challenge the discharge of Union Home Minister and BJP leader Amit Shah from the said case.
Case Title: Kamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court earlier this week, refused to stay the operation of the tenders floated for the integrated cluster development of more than 5,000 housing societies in the plush Bandra Reclamation and Worli areas in Mumbai. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Shriram Modak said that it would be hearing the matter finally and therefore, refused to stay the tenders, which were floated on April 7 and the bids likely to be opened on May 20.
Case Title: Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (May 13) disposed of as withdrawn a petition which sought stay on the May 16 high stakes board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), after expressing displeasure over the 'conduct' of the petitioner. A vacation court presided over by the division bench of Justice Advait Sethna and Justice Sandesh Patil was 'shocked' to note that the petitioner Suresh Patilkhede, who sought a stay on the meeting on the ground that some representations have already been made against the formation of the SRTT board of directors, was not the one who had filed the representation before the Charity Commissioner and rather the said representations were made by some other third party.
Case Title: Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on tenants seeking impleadment of a new developer in redevelopment proceedings despite the absence of any privity of contract between the developer and the landlords. The Court observed that the application was “nothing else but an elite form of coercion and extortion” and amounted to abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254
The Bombay High Court has observed that when there are allegations regarding the fabrication of orders of the High Court, the Court cannot remain a “mute spectator” to a casual or predetermined investigation. The Court observed that where prima facie material indicates fabrication of court orders, the investigating agency is expected to conduct a serious and fair investigation aimed at identifying the real culprit.
Case Title: Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255
The Bombay High Court has held that merely taking away a seized tractor from police custody does not by itself make a person a “sand smuggler” within the meaning of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The Court observed that unless the statutory ingredients relating to unauthorised extraction, transportation, storage or related activities concerning sand are satisfied, preventive detention under the MPDA Act cannot be sustained.
Case Title: The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a fresh auction is not mandatory for the disposal of inventoried mining dumps created pursuant to mining operations carried out under an approved mining plan. The Court observed that where such dumps are depicted in the approved mining plan, and statutory dues including conversion fees and penalties have been paid, the State Government is entitled to permit erstwhile leaseholders to remove the dumps without conducting a fresh auction.
Case Title: Geeta Kampani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 257
The Bombay High Court has held that police cannot freeze or seize bank accounts under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without establishing a direct nexus between the seized property and the alleged offence. The Court observed that imposing an onerous condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the frozen amount while directing de-freezing of accounts frustrates the very object of such de-freezing.
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 258
If citizens are compelled to stand on road without proper shelter or seating, to wait for public transport like bus services, even during extreme weather conditions, the same violates their right to dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution of India, held the Bombay High Court while ordering the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) for providing proper bus stop infrastructure in the city and also basic amenities to the citizens.
Case Title: Aditi Sanjaysingh Bais vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) in a writ petition challenging the retrospective application of the mandatory three-year practice requirement prescribed for the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) examination.
Case Title: Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
The Bombay High Court at Goa has upheld the constitutional validity of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings (Amendment) Acts of 2022 and 2023, which altered the order of legal succession by placing the surviving spouse above ascendants in cases of intestate succession. The Court observed that according precedence to the surviving spouse over parents or other ascendants cannot be termed manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional merely because the legislature chose to alter the existing order of succession.
Case Title: Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
The Bombay High Court recently criticised the Maharashtra Government for on one hand insisting to give importance to Marathi language and on the other hand attempting to shut down Marathi medium schools by issuing two Government Resolutions (GRs) on April 1 and April 2 this year, permanently disqualifying several unaided primary and secondary schools from receiving grant-in-aid.
Case Title: KBC vs BSC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
Wives are not 'deemed maids' and thus, their failure to perform domestic chores such as cooking, cleaning etc does not amount to cruelty, held the Bombay High Court recently. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande quashed and set aside a judgment of the Family Court in Mumbai, which on July 23, 2010 granted divorce to a Chartered Accountant man, on grounds of cruelty.
Case Title: HRBK vs LRRK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
The Bombay High Court recently while dealing with case pertaining to the payment of monthly maintenance to a wife, took judicial note of the rising unemployment and observed that even the highly educated persons are jobless and thus, even if a woman is highly educated she cannot be denied maintenance. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while dismissing a husband's argument that his wife has studied upto post graduation and is an able-bodied person and thus, can maintain herself.
Case Title: Mayur Sakharam Sawant vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
The Bombay High Court recently held that in cases of public recruitment processes, wherein large number of candidates apply for jobs, courts cannot casually interfere at any stage of the process and order reopening of a particular process especially on vague and unsubstantiated pleas made by any candidate. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar refused to grant any relief to one Mayur Sawant (31), who had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Social Service Superintendent (Medical) and cleared the examinations for the same which were held in September 2025.
Case Title: Vinodkumar Chellappan Pillai vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 265
The Bombay High Court has struck down the portion of Rule 14(1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, which mandated that a prisoner could become eligible for regular parole only after completion of one year of actual imprisonment. The Court held that the condition was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Shekhar Kakasaheb Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (May 20) quashed the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against Sanjay Pandey— the former Commissioner of Mumbai Police who also served as the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra, and a lawyer— who were accused of deliberately re-opening a criminal case against a businessman and forcing him to give certain statements against Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and his Deputy Eknath Shinde.
Bombay High Court Stays Deployment Of Private Unaided, Minority School Teachers For Census Duties
Case Title: Unaided Schools Forum vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 267
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 22) granted an interim stay on deploying the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private unaided and private unaided minority schools for the decennial census operations across Maharashtra. A vacation court presided over by a division bench of Justice Gautam Ankhad and Justice Sandesh Patil while granting interim relief to thousands of staff working in over more than 500 private unaided and private unaided minority schools across Maharashtra, prima facie, held that there was no 'express' obligation on the staff of such schools to be requisitioned for census work.
Case Title: Mumbai Press Club vs Gurbir Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 268
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 22) stayed a trial court order which had halted the expulsion of senior journalist Gurbir Singh from the Mumbai Press Club (MPC), for allegedly holding an event attended by eight accused named in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case. In doing so, the High Court held that the trial court, in the interim order, had not disclosed its reasons for granting sweeping ad-interim reliefs and "virtually granted the substantive final reliefs".
Case Title: Pradeep Rambhau Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 269
The Bombay High Court recently granted 25 days parole to a man convicted under the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, for constructing a new house, after his previous home was demolished by the Maharashtra Government following acquisition of the land parcel (on which his house stood) for the Navi Mumbai International Airport. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that the convict Pradeep Gaikwad has already spent more than nine years in jail and also that despite his house being demolished, he was yet to get the compensation from the State.
Case Title: MKJ vs LMJ
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
Torture or ill-treatment of the wife in her husband's house, or even when a wife cannot reasonably hope that she can live with dignity at her husband's house are some sufficient grounds for a wife to refuse to live with her husband and seek maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Bombay High Court held recently.
Case Title: N vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that parents of a husband or his relatives, cannot be booked under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) just because they choose to remain quiet, refrain from taking sides or be a 'passive spectator' in a crossfire of allegations between the husband and the wife.
Case Title: Unilever Plc vs Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 29) expressed its displeasure over the assault of a court-appointed receiver and the representatives of the Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), who visited Ambala in Haryana for executing a court order for seizing large quantity of counterfeit products.
Other Developments
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a defamation suit filed by Aditya Dhar, director of the recently released Bollywood film Dhurandhar, against Filmmaker Santosh Kumar, who in a Press Conference had claimed that the script of the film in question was 'copied' from his original work titled as 'D Saheb.' Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor, disposed of the suit on April 30, after Kumar tendered an apology for whatever he stated in the Press Conference against Dhar.
Observing that 'life comes once' and 'money will come and go', the Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered immediate release of 50 seafarers - all Indian nationals, who were stranded on three vessels near the Mumbai Coast since February 9, surviving on limited food stocks and 300 ml water per day. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar ordered immediate release of the 50 seafarers who were stranded on MT Asphalt Star, MT Stellar Ruby and MT Al Jafzia, which were arrested by the Yellow Gate Police Station in Mumbai, for alleged illegal fuel oil and bitumen transfers.
Questioning the "loud" celebrations of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar's birth anniversary in Nagpur, the Bombay High Court recently said that the great philosopher would have preferred a celebration more focused on intellectual growth, social reforms, and empowerment of the downtrodden than using loud music. A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that on the eve of celebrations of Dr Ambedkar's brith anniversary at 'Samvidhan Square'— there was loud noise; slogans; and bursting of firecrackers, which the Amicus Curiae said violates the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the Rights of General Public guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (May 5) asked Maharashtra Government to modify the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against UK-based Doctor & YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil–booked for making 'objectionable' posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi –so that he can fly back to his home country by Monday. Patil is booked in a FIR for allegedly posting defamatory posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Tuesday told the Bombay High Court that the Bangladeshi nationals, who have entered India illegally, have no business here and cannot be permitted to indulge into hawking activites and would be removed soon. The BMC through senior advocate Anil Singh along with Advocate Chaitanya Chavan told a division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata that the civic body would require some time but it will surely remove the illegal Bangladeshi hawkers, if any.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted five weeks time to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to issue 'Quick Response' (QR) Code generated Identity Cards (ID) to the 99,435 'surveyed' hawkers, so that any person beyond this list, especially Bangladeshi nationals, if found hawking, can be evicted. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata also directed the BMC to come up with some mechanism wherein people or the fellow hawkers can flag persons, especially Bangladeshi nationals, if found hawking in their local areas.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) dismissed the appeals filed by the family members of the victims in the alleged "fake" encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulsiram Prajapati. The family had challenged the acquittal of the 22 Policemen from Gujarat, who were named in the case. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad pronounced the order in open court.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 8) orally remarked that it hopes that the dispute between industrialist Anil Ambani and Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami over allegedly objectionable reporting on the former can be settled amicably. The court further asked the channel to consider the allegedly objectionable content flagged by Ambani.
The Bombay High Court recently rapped the Mumbai Police for its "thoughtless" affidavit justifying it's "inaction" over the sudden demolition of the printing press set up by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar at a plot in Dadar, way back in 1945. The property was demolished in the wee hours of June 25, 2016 after a crowd of 400 to 500 persons thronged the site. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata passed an order on April 30, directing the police authorities to explain why no action was taken on a complaint filed by Ambedkar's grandson on June 25, 2016 when the printing press known as Buddha Bhushan Printing Press, was being demolished in the midnight after 400 to 500 persons gathered the spot.
The ongoing controversy over Sudha Bharadwaj and Varavara Rao - both accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, who allegedly flouted their bail conditions and together attended an event organised by journalist Gurbir Singh at the Mumbai Press Club (MPC), reached the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (May 19) with Justice Sandesh Patil recusing from hearing the matter. Notably, one of the bail conditions imposed by the special court on all the 15 accused in the case is that they will not interact with each other, however, Bharadwaj and Rao together attended Singh's event at the MPC on January 19, 2026, which was allegedly for discussing the legal and other issues concerning the case.
Bombay High Court Considers Framing Interim Guidelines For Protection Of Advocates From Violence
The Bombay High Court has considered framing interim guidelines for the protection of advocates from violence, harassment, coercion and criminal intimidation till appropriate legislation on the subject is enacted. The Court observed that the issue raised in the public interest litigation was of considerable importance and concerned assaults on advocates affecting the administration of justice.