Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88]Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 50Anita Naik vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52Madhu...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88]
Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
Anita Naik vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
Madhu Malti Enterprises vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
Abu Salem vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
Martin Soares vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
Anuradha Nayan Shah vs Jayantilal Vallabhdas Patni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
Chetan Samajik Pratishthan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra,2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar vs Tree Authority Department, Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
Elis Jane Quinlan vs Naveen Kumar Seth, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
Bipin Vasant Shinde vs Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
Prakash Krishna Gamre vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Minister for Cooperation & Textile Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
Aditya Shailendra Mane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
State Bank of India vs Anil D Ambani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
Shakuntala Tilakdhari Gupta vs Jawaharlal R Gupta, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare vs Teofilo J Monteiro, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti vs M/s Govindram Shobharam and Company, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Shobhit Kumar vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
Pradeep Prakash Baiker vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Aashu Engineering Works, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
Mumbai Fire Services Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Stavan Wilson Sathe vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Sunita Bapu Jagtap vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 49
Insurance companies when accepting porting of a policy must show highest level of professionalism and due diligence in vetting the customer's previous insurance claim history and then take an 'informed' decision, the Bombay High Court ruled recently. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that the insurance companies when dealing with an application by a customer to port his or her insurance policy from one company to the another, cannot blame the customer for failing to furnish the details of previous policy's claim history as it is the task of the previous insurance company to provide such information.
Case Title: Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 50
In an interesting ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday (February 2) held that a court taking two decades to decide a matter cannot be a ground for a party to challenge the court's order after a delay of nearly two years. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore, refused to condone a delay of 645 days as prayed by one Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala, who sought to review an order passed in a First Appeal on February 6, 2024.
Case Title: Anita Naik vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 3), while acquitting two women convicted for hitting their relative's child with an iron rod on his head leading to bleeding injury, held that mere solitary instance of an assault on a child cannot amount to the offence of 'child abuse' under the Goa Children's Act, 2003
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
Observing that despite clear orders the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and also the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) have failed to contain the rising levels of air pollution in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court recently constituted a High Power committee (HPC) comprising retired Justice Amjad Sayed and retired Justice Anuja Prabhudesai.
Case Title: Madhu Malti Enterprises vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
The Bombay High Court recently held that merely storing or preserving any item in a cold storage or more particularly a refrigerator would not amount to 'manufacturing process' and would thus not make a premise where such preserving and storing is taking place, a factory under the Factories Act.
Case Title: Abu Salem vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused permission to underworld gangster Abu Salem to travel to his native place in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, to mourn the death of his brother, Abu Hakim Ansari. A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak upheld the order of the Appellate Authority which had allowed Salem emergency parole only on the condition that he pays Rs 17.60 lakh towards High Security Police Escort charges. Salem had earlier refused to pay the amount.
Case Title: Martin Soares vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) recently upheld the conviction and refused to reduce the 10-year sentence awarded to an 83-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl in 2012. A bench of Justice Shreeram Shirsat said that the age of the Appellant could not be a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence in such offences as the Court can't "turn a Nelson's eye" to the age of the victim and the ordeal the victim has undergone.
Case Title: Anuradha Nayan Shah vs Jayantilal Vallabhdas Patni
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
The Bombay High Court has ordered a fresh 'revaluation' of a prime property at Mumbai's Vile Parle area after finding that the initial process of auction of the plot was 'rigged' with bidders coming a 'syndicate' and 'under-bidding' for the property. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar therefore while ordering fresh auction, ordered forfeiture of the Rs 10 lakh each Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by five bidders, till further orders.
Case Title: Chetan Samajik Pratishthan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
The Bombay High Court has held that access to adequate sanitation and toilet facilities constitutes a basic human right forming an integral part of the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, even in slum areas created by encroachment on municipal land. The Court observed that once large populations reside in slums, whether authorised or unauthorised, the Municipal Corporation cannot abdicate its statutory and constitutional obligations to provide and maintain basic civic amenities.
Case Title: Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
The Bombay High Court has held that the power to impound an instrument under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, is a serious statutory power having direct civil consequences on the property rights of a citizen and therefore can be exercised only by the “Registering Officer” before whom the document was registered. The Court observed that Section 33A does not permit any other revenue authority or superior officer to assume such power merely on the basis of administrative hierarchy.
Case Title: Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
The Bombay High Court has held that though a Magistrate is empowered under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commit a case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the inquiry or trial, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or solely on the basis of the severe nature of the punishment prescribed for the offence. The Court held that the Magistrate must form an opinion, supported by reasons, after discussing the evidence recorded before him, to conclude that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court.
Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to give wide publicity to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to ensure that no woman, particularly an unmarried woman, is forced to continue with an 'unwanted' pregnancy.
Case Title: Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
The Bombay High Court has held that mere telephonic contact with a co-accused, without any material indicating knowledge of or participation in the organised crime syndicate or the crime itself, is insufficient to prima facie connect an accused to the offence. The Court observed that at the stage of considering bail under the stringent provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), a bare allegation of having made calls, unaccompanied by evidence of conspiracy, knowledge, or facilitation, does not satisfy the statutory threshold.
Case Title: Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar vs Tree Authority Department, Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
Emphasising the need to 'strictly' follow the laws protecting trees and observing that 'trees are a poem which the earth writes upon the sky', the Bombay High Court recently held that even an officer, who fails to adhere to the due procedure for permitting felling or cutting of trees, is liable to be prosecuted under the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Tress Act, 1975.
Case Title: Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
Upholding a man's conviction for subjecting a minor girl to oral sex, the Bombay High Court recently reduced his life sentence to 12 years after noting that while in jail, the man 'successfully' passed exams on 'thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi' besides other programmes and also the fact that he had no other antecedents. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Sandesh Patil reduced the life sentence imposed on one Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, who was convicted by a special court under Section 6 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in December 2020.
Framing Of Issues Not Mandatory In Execution Of Foreign Decrees U/S 44A CPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Elis Jane Quinlan vs Naveen Kumar Seth
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
The Bombay High Court has held that while executing a decree passed by a foreign court in a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is not mandatory for the District Court to frame issues and direct the parties to lead evidence while examining whether the decree falls within any of the exceptions under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 CPC. The Court clarified that the inquiry contemplated under Section 44A(3) read with Section 13 is ordinarily summary in nature and not equivalent to a full-fledged trial as in a suit filed on a foreign judgment from a non-reciprocating territory.
Case Title: Bipin Vasant Shinde vs Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
The Bombay High Court has held that where promotions are governed by the principle of “seniority-cum-merit”, seniority must be reckoned in the feeder cadre and not based on the date of initial appointment to service. The Court observed that once an employee satisfies the minimum eligibility and merit requirements prescribed for the promotional post, seniority in the immediate lower cadre becomes determinative, and the employer cannot revert to the date of entry into service to alter the promotional hierarchy.
Case Title: Prakash Krishna Gamre vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court while quashing a Tribunal's order directing two sons to vacate the property of their father, recently held that every dispute or conflict between a senior citizen and his children will not fall within the ambit of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan quashed and set aside an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on February 2, 2024 directing the petitioner sons to vacate the residential units in suburban Malad, Mumbai after their father filed an application under section 4 and 5 of the Act.
Case Title: Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Minister for Cooperation & Textile Department
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
The safeguards under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act for division of an existing housing society into two or more cannot be bypassed, the Bombay High Court made it clear recently while quashing an order registering a separate society comprising of 10 shops of a building, which was carved out of an existing society. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar held that without statutorily bifurcating an existing society under the MCS Act, the Deputy Registrar cannot register a separate society.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that the service of summons through an electronic mode or even through a mobile phone would be legal as it is permitted under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke sitting at the Nagpur seat, quashed an order of a Special POCSO Court which had imposed costs on a constable in a child abuse case, for serving summons to prosecution witnesses through mobile phone, particularly through WhatsApp.
Case Title: Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday (Feb 6) held that section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS) cannot be invoked in disputes pertaining to 'salary scale' as it would result in expanding the provisions' scope and also make the School Tribunals, a general forum to hear all kinds of financial claims by employees against school managements.
Case Title: Aditya Shailendra Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
Assaulting a boy to dissuade him from continuing a love relationship which is objected by the girl's family is an 'individualistic' act and cannot be considered to be against 'public order' to detain a person under 'preventive detention' laws, held the Bombay High Court earlier this month. Sitting at the Kolhapur circuit seat, a division bench of Justice Ravindra Avachat and Justice Ajit Kadethankar quashed and set aside a preventive detention order passed against one Aditya Mane, a resident of Solapur.
Case Title: Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
The Bombay High Court has held that if no steps are commenced for the acquisition of land after the expiry of the stipulated period under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the land is deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. The Court observed that once a valid purchase notice is served and the Planning Authority fails to take steps for acquisition within twenty-four months, the lapse operates by statutory deeming fiction and the authority cannot defeat such consequence by raising technical objections.
Case Title: Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a man and his family held that "indiscriminate" invoking of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by "highly educated" women complainants, only trivialises the object of the section 498A. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Pravin Patil noted the "disturbing pattern" of educated women filing FIRs under section 498A against the husband and his family members only to settle scores.
Case Title: State Bank of India vs Anil D Ambani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
The Bombay High Court on Monday allowed the appeals preferred by three banks - Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and the IDBI Bank challenging the order of a single-judge, who had stayed fraud classification proceedings initiated by them against Anil Ambani, the founder and chairman of the Reliance Group, after prima facie finding 'serious defects' in the forensic audit relied upon by the said banks.
Case Title: Shakuntala Tilakdhari Gupta vs Jawaharlal R Gupta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
Hiring a person even for a short period would bring in an 'employee-employer' relationship under the Employees' Compensation Act, held the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore ordered a Labour Commissioner to compensate the family of one Tilakdhari Gupta, who was 'hired' by Jawahar Gupta for a period of two months, to drive his car from Thane to Rajasthan, where Jawahar's brother's funeral was scheduled. One their way to Rajasthan i.e. on March 29, 2009, the car met an accident and Tilakdhari died while Jawahar and other passengers in the car sustained injuries.
Case Title: Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Bombay High Court today quashed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against Kishore Dewani, an Advocate by profession and an alleged close aide of former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who is booked in a multi-crore money laundering case. Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe quashed the process and also the ED case against Dewani, who allegedly helped Deshmukh and his family to launder the money they allegedly earned illegally by collecting Rs 100 crore per month from various bar owners across Mumbai.
Case Title: The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare vs Teofilo J Monteiro
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
The Bombay High Court has held that a party cannot be denied examination of a witness merely on account of the witness being unwell, observing that such a direction is untenable in law and contrary to the principles of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that if a witness is competent and possesses relevant knowledge of the facts in issue, health concerns may justify adjournment, but cannot justify compelling a party to substitute the witness.
Case Title: VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
An 'intention' to insult the Indian National Flag by displaying it inverted - saffron down - is required for a person to be booked under the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, held the Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a 85-year-old man booked for insulting the national tricolour by displaying it inverted on the residential society's terrace while celebrating the Republic Day in 2017.
Case Title: Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti vs M/s Govindram Shobharam and Company
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
The Bombay High Court has held that demolition of tenanted premises during the pendency of an eviction suit does not extinguish the tenancy nor defeat the landlord's bona fide requirement under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRCA). The Court observed that where tenancy is created in respect of a building standing on land, both the land and the superstructure constitute the subject matter of demise, and destruction of the building alone does not render the eviction proceedings infructuous.
Case Title: Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
Emphasising on the importance of education in today's world, the Bombay High Court recently came to rescue of a 13-year-old girl student, who was removed from her school for non-payment of fees. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode held the school's action to be 'illegal and arbitrary' in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and therefore, ordered the Father Agnel School at Bhandara District to re-admit the class 7th girl student and also ordered the student's parents to clear the fees of Rs 23,900 within two weeks.
Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Passing orders directing Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) under section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 to ascertain a person's mental health based on the proof adduced by his or her opponent, would create a mechanism that may be weaponised by an adversarial party instead of protecting the 'rights' of the person, held the Bombay High Court recently.
Threat Of Suicide To Force Girl To Accompany Accused Constitutes Kidnapping: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shobhit Kumar vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
If a man threatens a girl to come along with him else he will commit suicide, the same would amount to 'enticing' her and a clear case of kidnapping is made out in such circumstances, held the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Shreeram Shirsat while upholding a man's conviction under section 363 (kidnapping) and section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, noted the testimony of the victim, who stated that the appellant had asked her to meet him at the Panaji Bus Stand on December 11, 2021 and had clearly threatened her that if she would not come, he will commit suicide.
Case Title: Pradeep Prakash Baiker vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, a person cannot be acquitted just because the medical officer does not give any opinion about sexual assault. Single-judge Justice Ravindra Joshi, while upholding a man's conviction under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, noted the argument of the convict that the medical officer who testified before the trial court did not give any opinion on sexual assault nor did he speak about any injury on the victim's person.
Case Title: Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay High Court has held that the six-year limitation prescribed under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, governs the entire revisional process, from initiation to passing of the final order, and not merely the issuance of notice. The Court observed that a fiscal statute must be construed strictly and that permitting initiation within six years but completion thereafter would introduce uncertainty in property transactions contrary to legislative intent.
Case Title: The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Aashu Engineering Works
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
The Bombay High Court recently invoked Benjamin Franklin and explained how laws in India continue to be violated only because of low deterrent effect and how important it is in a civilised society, to obey law out of principle rather than just fear of punishment. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain explained that penal provisions have a dual effect - one to penalise an offender or defaulter and the second one is to act as a deterrent.
Case Title: Mumbai Fire Services Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
The Bombay High Court has held that the Fire Brigade Department is an integral part of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and constitutes an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Court observed that there is unity of ownership, management, finance and functional integrity between the Corporation and its Fire Brigade Department, and that internal budgetary arrangements or departmental specialisation do not create a separate legal identity.
Case Title: Stavan Wilson Sathe vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Mere presence of a painting of the Holy Cross or a statue of Lord Jesus Christ in a person's house cannot be used as a ground to hold that the said person or his forefathers have converted into Christianity, held the Bombay High Court recently. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Mukulika Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh Deshpande quashed and set aside an order of a District Caste Scrutiny Committee which refused to grant the status of "Mang or Matang", a Scheduled Caste, to one Stawan Wilson Sathe.
Sunita Bapu Jagtap vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
The Bombay High Court has held that supervisory staff deputed to manage traffic operations during the COVID-19 pandemic were exposed to the same risk as drivers and conductors, and are therefore entitled to compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the applicable Government Resolution and MSRTC circulars. The Court observed that the deceased did his job at the risk to his life in a time when the life of the general public came to a standstill, and the public services, including transport, were kept open for limited services.
Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
At the time when more and more women are joining the workforce for becoming economically independent, the authorities by denying them maternity leave benefits cannot compromise their role as a care giver to the child, observed the Bombay High Court while ordering the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pay and extend the benefits to a Doctor, working in the civic-run KEM hospital, at the earliest. A division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Advait Sethna highlighted the fact that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was brought in for protecting the 'dignity' of motherhood.
Other Developments
The Bombay High Court last week ordered the Maharashtra Government to deposit an amount of Rs 3.60 crores with the Court towards the non-payment of compensation to victims of human right violations, as ordered by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC). A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad ordered the State to deposit the amount with the Court and also ordered the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to appoint a Nodal Officer who can ensure that payments can be made to the victims.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it was not inclined to permit underworld gangster Abu Salem to visit his native place in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, to mourn the death of his brother Abu Hakim Ansari, by availing emergency parole for four days, since the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts convict has claimed that he cannot pay ₹17.60 lakh towards police escort party charges.
The Mumbai Police told the Bombay High Court that the criminal action against YouTuber and UK-based doctor Sangram Patil is not 'arbitrary' but it is only to 'safeguard' India's image and also the dignity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the international forum and also to protect national integrity.
Satirist Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The challenge is directed against provisions which enable the blocking of content posted on social media intermediaries. Earlier, the Karnataka High Court, in a challenge by 'X Corp', had held that the Sahyog portal is not an instrument for censorship, but ensures cooperation between social media intermediaries and government agencies.
The Bombay High Court has sought from its Administration a 'blue print' for recruitment of nearly 2800 judicial officers against the newly sanctioned posts by the Maharashtra Government for the State's lower judiciary. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Sarang Kotwal emphasised that the State as well as the High Court on the Administrative side will have to act 'expeditiously' to aim its goal of 'speedy justice' for the citizens.
In a development in the criminal proceedings initiated against YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil for allegedly posting 'obscene and defamatory' posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the UK-based doctor has 'categorically' told the Bombay High Court that he has not made any post against the PM and that the Mumbai Police is only trying to 'criminalise' political speech.
While observing that despite publicity of the popular slogan 'Clean Nagpur, Beautiful Nagpur', the slogans remains only on the papers and the reality of the city can be seen on its streets, which are littered, the Bombay High Court recently took suo motu cognisance of the issue of 'cleanliness' in the city. A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode took suo motu cognisance of news articles published in two leading Marathi newspapers, which highlighted the issue of garbage lying open at various streets of Nagpur.
While pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over its failure to act against illegal encroachers on public roads, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that if such an approach of the civic body continues, then in the coming decade, people will switch to bicycles and horses and even the civic chief would ride a horse to reach his office.
Wondering if the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials were playing 'Tom & Jerry' with encroachers in the city's plush Hiranandani area in Powai, the Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned if the civic body has become 'powerless' and has 'surrendered' the city to encroachers as it appeared only to be protecting 'sentiments and religious rights.'
“Return To India Or We Won't Hear Your Challenge Against FEO Act”: Bombay High Court To Vijay Mallya
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted a last chance to former liquor baron Vijay Mallya to spell out when he plans to return to India so that his plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that it had in a previous hearing it was made clear to Mallya to file an affidavit stating when he proposed to return to India and submit to the jurisdiction of the court. However, when the matter was called out on Thursday morning, it was informed that such an affidavit was not filed by Mallya yet.
The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and also the Maharashtra Government to file their affidavits in response to a plea filed by former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who has sought a temporary stay on the framing of charges in the money laundering case lodged against him. Deshmukh, who petitioned a single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin Bhobe has urged the court to issue a directive to a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to first consider dealing with the case lodged against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on allegations of corruption, which is the 'predicate offence.'
Bollywood actor Shatrughan Sinha has moved the Bombay High Court seeking to protect his 'personality rights' citing the unauthorised use of his name, image, and especially his iconic dialogue "Khamosh." Sinha's suit was heard by single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh on Monday and was reserved for ad-interim orders.
A writ petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Government to scrap the 5% reservation in education to Muslim community. The petition filed by advocate Ejaz Naqvi challenges the February 17 Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra Government which withdraws a 2014 Ordinance. This ordinance had provided 5% reservation to 50 castes of the Muslim community, for education.
The Bombay High Court on Friday directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to make a statement by next week spelling out if it will consider purely on 'humanitarian' grounds, to permit the autorickshaw, taxi, Ola-Uber drivers and even passengers to offer Namaz at a temporary shed in the vicinity of the Domestic Terminal of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), at least for the ongoing holy month of Ramadan.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking quashing of a criminal defamation complaint over his alleged remarks describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”. Justice Nitin Borkar, after hearing detailed submissions from all sides, directed that the matter be reserved for judgment and ordered that the interim relief earlier granted to Gandhi would continue.
The Maharashtra Government on Thursday informed the Bombay High Court that it cannot permit Autorickshaw-Taxi and Ola-Uber cab drivers to offer Namaz at a temporary shed in the vicinity of the Domestic Terminal of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), even for the ongoing holy month of Ramadan, due to 'security' reasons. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla however, asked the State as well as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to identify a site in the vicinity so that the drivers and also the passengers, can offer Namaz at least for the ongoing month of Ramadan.
An advocate has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking structural safety assessment of all the construction sites of various lines of Mumbai Metro after the tragic accident took place in the city wherein one man lost his life and three were seriously injured after a portion of the slab of an under-construction of Metro Line 4B fell on an autorickshaw and a private car.