Nominal Index [Citations 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 1 to 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 48]Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs Remi Sales And Engineering Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 2Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 3Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs...
Nominal Index [Citations 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 1 to 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 48]
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs Remi Sales And Engineering Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
Sharekhan Limited vs Monita Kisan Khade, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
Amit Engineers vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
Amrik Singh Saini vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav vs Electoral Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Vijay Shankar Singh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd. (Erstwhile J M Mhatre Partnership Firm) vs The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
IPCA Laboratories Limited vs Anrose Pharma, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
S.G. Mittal Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs The Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited vs Kavita Janki Services Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
Anand Khosala vs Punam Kumari Singh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
Minco India Private Limited vs Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
Phalke Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Adit Enterprises, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh vs Commissioner of Police, Pune City, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
Milan Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature of Bombay vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
Union of India vs Nilesh Thakur, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
Deepak Shivkumar Bahry vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
Ambernath Vikas Aghadi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Ramesh Dada Kalel vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
Yusuf Khan s/o Bahadur Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
Rahul Sambhu Kabade vs Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
Digant Parekh (HUF) vs Akruti Kailash Construction, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Adil Lutfi Peters, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Kapil vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
Ramesh Gaichor vs NIA, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
Ashwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Sailappan Sodali Muthu vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Purbha Tulsa @ Tulsiram Dhutde vs Mohd Jafar Shaikh Ismail, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
Gavit Gulabsingh Suka vs Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sastha (Kolhapur), 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
Union of India vs Lt. Col. SK Rathore, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
Sunil Shankar Mohite vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
RB Bohora Education & Welfare Trust vs Vijay Mundaware, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
GDA vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
Joseph Achola Ouma vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs Remi Sales And Engineering Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), holding that once goods are put to use by the buyer, such conduct amounts to deemed acceptance under section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ("SOGA"), the buyer cannot later reject the goods on the ground of alleged defects. A claim for damages can be filed for breach of warranty but goods cannot be rejected, the court ruled.
Case Title: Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
The Bombay High Court has recently restored enforcement proceedings initiated by IMAX Corporation for execution of foreign arbitral awards against E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd for breach of contractual obligations, holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies even between different stages of the same enforcement petition.
Case Title: Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
The Bombay High Court has held that where an arbitral award passed against a company is under challenge, and the company later successfully comes out of insolvency, the award holder cannot retain money withdrawn from court deposits if the claim itself is wiped out under an approved resolution plan. The court said such amounts must be returned, as the award itself no longer survives.
Bombay High Court Rejects Interim Injunction Sought by Sun Pharma Against “RACIRAFT” Rival “EsiRaft”
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
The Bombay High Court, in an interim order, has refused to restrain Gujarat based-Meghmani Lifesciences Limited from using the trademark “EsiRaft” for its pharmaceutical product used to treat heartburn and indigestion. The court held that the mark is not deceptively similar to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's “RACIRAFT.”
Bombay High Court Bars Restaurant Chains Operating 94 Outlets From Playing PPL Music Without License
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
The Bombay High Court has, in an interim order, restrained two restaurant operators running around 94 outlets from publicly playing music from Phonographic Performance Limited's repertoire without a license after finding a prima facie case of copyright infringement. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, in an order pronounced on December 24, 2025, held that continued unauthorised use would cause loss to PPL and therefore warranted interim protection.
Case Title: Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay High Court has held that once the State Government is satisfied that the delay in execution of a mining lease is for reasons beyond the control of the preferred bidder, the extension contemplated under the second proviso to Rule 10(6) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 must be for the full period of two years and cannot be curtailed. The Court observed that the provision does not confer discretion upon the State to grant an extension of a lesser duration, and any interpretation permitting a shorter extension would defeat the legislative intent and render the proviso redundant.
Case Title: Sharekhan Limited vs Monita Kisan Khade
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that mere violation of SEBI's trade confirmation circular does not automatically make a broker liable for market losses, and it set aside arbitral awards that directed stockbroker Sharekhan Limited to reimburse investors for losses sustained in Futures and Options (F&O) trading. The Single Bench on 24th December, 2025, decided that investors who authorised an individual to trade on their behalf could not thereafter retract those trades and shift losses to the broker. Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne held that clients who “relied on skills and took the risks in the volatility of the stock market, cannot later turn around and disown the trade transactions”, noting that regulatory violations may invite disciplinary action but do not automatically create civil liability for losses.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Passed With “Undue Haste” After Four-Year Delay
Case Title: Amit Engineers vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that it was passed in undue haste after nearly four years of inaction and without giving the parties any opportunity of hearing. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne found that the arbitrator acted with undue haste and in clear breach of natural justice.
Case Title: Amrik Singh Saini vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
A woman's father-in-law refusing to listen to her complaint about her husband's 'extra-marital affair' and her brother-in-law (husband's brother) asking her to 'tolerate' her husband's beating would not amount to cruelty under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak delivered the ruling while quashing an FIR lodged against a man and his younger son, with the Pune Police, at the behest of his daughter-in-law.
Case Title: Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav vs Electoral Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Amid the political 'slugfest' between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar Faction) (NCP-SP), Bombay High Court on Monday (January 5) stayed the proposed elections of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA), which were scheduled to take place on January 6 till further orders.
Case Title: Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
The Bombay High Court has held that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has no authority under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, to impose territorial restrictions on the business operations of an authorised pre-processing facility. The Court held that the amended circular dated 15 February 2024 and the consequential insertion of Clause 19 in the Consent to Operate (CTO) illegally curtailed the petitioner's right to carry on trade and business throughout the State, thereby violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Vijay Shankar Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
Mere installation of telecommunication antennas on the terrace and employing workers to manage the affairs of the society, does not make a cooperative housing society an 'industry' or an 'establishment' under the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act) or the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, respectively, held the Bombay High Court on Monday (January 5).
Case Title: Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court has held that though an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be maintainable even after framing of charge, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or routinely, and must be supported by strong and justifiable reasons demonstrating serious lapses in investigation. The Court observed that a fair investigation implies sufficient opportunity to conduct the investigation, and one cannot challenge the investigation unless there is justifiable ground to doubt the investigation.
Reassessment Notice To Non-Existent Firm Invalid: Bombay High Court Reiterates
Case Title: J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd. (Erstwhile J M Mhatre Partnership Firm) vs The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are invalid in law. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Amit Jamsandekar set aside a reassessment notice and a consequential assessment order issued under the Income Tax Act against a partnership firm that had merged into a private limited company years earlier.
Bombay High Court Imposes ₹15 Lakhs Cost On Anrose Pharma For Infringing 'ZERODOL' Trademark
Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Limited vs Anrose Pnarma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
The Bombay High Court has held that Anrose Pharma's adoption and use of the trade mark 'ZEROVOL-P' in respect of pharmaceutical products amounted to a clear case of infringement and passing off of IPCA Laboratories Limited's registered trade mark 'ZERODOL'. The Court observed that in matters involving medicinal products, a stricter standard of comparison is required, as even a likelihood of confusion poses a serious risk to public health.
High Courts Cannot Exercise Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction Over NCLT In IBC Cases: Bombay High Court
Case Title: S.G. Mittal Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs The Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that contempt petitions alleging breach of orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in insolvency cases cannot be filed directly before the High Court. A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav said that once contempt powers are conferred on the NCLT by law, the High Court should not exercise parallel jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Salon From Using 'Jawed Habib' Marks After Franchise Expiry
Case Title: awed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited vs Kavita Janki Services Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained a local salon operator from using the “Jawed Habib”, “Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty” and “JH” names and logos, holding that their use after the end of a franchise agreement amounts to prima facie trademark and copyright infringement. A single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh passed the ad-interim order on January 6, 2026, in favour of the popular hair salon franschise Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited. The restraint will continue until February 3, 2026.
Software Ownership Disputes Involving IPR Not Arbitrable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Anand Khosala vs Punam Kumari Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
The Bombay High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal was right in refusing to decide who owns a software product, saying such questions involve intellectual property rights that affect the public at large (rights in rem) and cannot be settled through private arbitration. A Single-Judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne said that deciding ownership of the “Test Magic” software would inevitably involve ruling on trademark and copyright rights, which are not meant for arbitration.
Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Minco India Against Group Company Over 'MINCO' Mark
Case Title: Minco India Private Limited vs Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to Minco India Private Limited in a trademark dispute over the use of the word “MINCO”. The court held that the company had suppressed material facts and had allowed the rival firm to use the name since at least 2012 without objection. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed an interim application seeking to restrain Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited from using “MINCO” as part of its trade name.
Case Title: Phalke Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Adit Enterprises
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil suit filed by individual members of a housing society against a developer does not amount to abandonment of the arbitration clause in a redevelopment agreement. The Court said such a decision can be taken only by the society acting as a collective body. A Single-Judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that once a co-operative housing society is formed, individual members give up their separate will to the collective will of the society. Courts cannot infer the society's intent from the conduct of its members.
Case Title: Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh vs Commissioner of Police, Pune City
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
The act of wielding a deadly weapon like 'koyta' in the middle of the road is not an act prejudicial to public order that can cause public disorder or disturb the even tempo of life, held the Bombay High Court while quashing the preventive detention of a woman in Pune. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale noted from the material on record, particularly the statements of two in-camera witnesses, who spoke about the petitioner Nilofer Shaikh wielding a deadly weapon (koyta) in the middle of the road, extorting money and threatening people. However, the judges held that this act of the petitioner was 'largely individualistic' and did not cause harm to the public order.
Case Title: Milan Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Bombay High Court has held that where a landowner voluntarily agrees to surrender land reserved for a public purpose under a sanctioned Development Plan, free of cost but in consideration of tangible planning benefits such as waiver of compulsory open space requirements or grant of higher Floor Space Index (FSI), such surrender constitutes a valid acquisition by agreement under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Court observed that consideration under Section 126 need not be monetary and that FSI and development rights have definite monetary value.
Case Title: The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature of Bombay vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court recently came down heavily on the Maharashtra Government for its failure to take serious and strict action against the illegal sale of nylon manjha which continues to be a menace as despite an 'unequivocal ban' on its sale, the same is freely available and widely used, hurting citizens and even birds. A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Venegavkar said that the State's action against the menace of nylon manjha is 'episodic' and inconsistent with its own constitutional obligations.
Case Title: Union of India vs Nilesh Thakur
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 24
In an unusual order, the Bombay High Court recently while noting the 'pressing' need to provide for the widows and children of the Army men, who lost their lives for the country, ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to pay the 50 per cent of the interests accrued on the Rs 46.5 crores, to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund (AFBCWF).
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 25
The Bombay High Court on Monday (January 12) made it clear that this year while celebrating 'Makar Sankranti' is found flying a kite using nylon manjha will have to cough up Rs 25,000 and ones selling this illegal item will have to pay Rs 2.5 lakhs. A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode while the absence of proper regulation and Statute, there was a continued wide use of the manjha despite clear directions against it.
Case Title: Deepak Shivkumar Bahry vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd.
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 26
The Bombay High Court last week imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant for submitting a 'non-existing' judgment generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI) which the court and its clerks could not find and thus deprecated such practice of 'dumping' non-existing and irrelevant materials on the court. Single-judge Justice Milind Sathaye was seized with a dispute between two film producers owing to a flat at Mumbai's Oshiwara area, which was governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 27
The Bombay High Court while observing that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is not meant to punish victims of sexual exploitation, ordered the release of a woman who was rescued during a police raid and was sent into the custody of a protection home on the ground that she has not source of income, nor family and thus she may again indulge in 'immoral' activities.
Case Title: Ambernath Vikas Aghadi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 28
In a bid to settle the political chaos in Ambernath Municipal Council (AMC), the Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Collector of Thane to decide afresh, recognising an alliance, either of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde Faction) along with the Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar Faction) or that of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) along with the 12 'expelled' but elected Councillors of the Congress party and the NCP.
Case Title: Ramesh Dada Kalel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court on Monday, while upholding a man's conviction and life sentence for raping a minor girl, bemoaned the 'danger' of 'over-emphasis' on the rights of the accused while 'ignoring' the rights of the victim. A division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Manjusha Deshpande highlighted the fact that it is the victim, who sets the criminal law into motion and yet the rights of the victim are often ignored completely.
Case Title: Yusuf Khan s/o Bahadur Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 30
While denying bail to one of the prime accused in the 2022 brutal murder of pharmacist Umesh Kolhe by a group of Muslim men over his support to the controversial statements made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma against Prophet Mohammed, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that the offence was heinous, and strikes at the conscious of the society.
Case Title: Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 31
The Bombay High Court last week, came to the rescue of an employee of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), who challenged the penalty of 'Reprimand' imposed on him by the Central Complaints Committee (CCC) for 'video recording' his female colleagues who often 'disturbed' the working hours by 'sitting together, giggling, gossiping and singing.'
Case Title: Rahul Sambhu Kabade vs Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 32
The Bombay High Court while refusing to condone the delay of 203 days in filing a first appeal challenging a trial court's order, deprecated the practice of litigants blaming advocates for the delay without making the said advocate a party and without initiating any action against the said lawyer.
Case Title: Digant Parekh (HUF) vs Akruti Kailash Construction
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court held that the mere pendency of a civil suit relating to the enforcement of an agreement for sale or recovery of consideration does not bar the Registrar from deciding an application for membership or deemed membership under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court observed that the MCS Act confers power upon the Registrar to decide membership when the society does not perform its duty, and the Registrar can confer membership in such a situation, subject to the decision in the civil suit.
Case Title: Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare vs Union of India
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court has held that mere non-endorsement of travel particulars on a valid privilege pass held by a railway employee does not, by itself, disentitle the employee from being treated as a bona fide passenger under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court observed that where the pass was valid on the date of travel and there was no evidence of misuse or excess travel beyond entitlement, denial of bonafide status on technical grounds is unjustified.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Adil Lutfi Peters
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Holding that the finding by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) based on fact cannot be challenged through a writ of certiorari on the ground that the finding was incorrect as "inadequate and insufficient" material was adduced, the Bombay High Court recently imposed hefty costs of Rs 2 lakhs on HDFC Ergo Genral Insurance, for challenging a Rs 45.25 lakh compensation awarded to an Air India crew.
Case Title: Kapil vs Union of India
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has held that Public Sector Banks (PSBs) are autonomous entities entitled to prescribe their own eligibility and disqualification criteria and the mere absence of a uniform instruction from the Government of India does not render such conditions arbitrary. The Court observed that it cannot interfere with the recruitment choices of the Banks unless a specific recruitment condition is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of constitutional guarantees.
Case Title: Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 37
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court held that Preventive Detention is a 'punishment without a trial' and thus, a detention proposal made by a sponsoring authority without prior verification of the in-camera witness statements is materially defective and illegal and such a detention order cannot sustain in law.
Case Title: Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 38
In a bid to ensure that there is no delay in processing the preventive detention orders, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to cut short the long chain of officers, through whom a proposal to detain an individual moves.
Case Title: Ramesh Gaichor vs NIA
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 39
The Bombay High Court on Friday granted bail to Ramesh Gaichor and Sagar Gorkhe, both arrested since 2020 for their roles in the Elgar Parishad - Bhima Koregaon case. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak granted bail on the ground of long incarceration.
Case Title: Ashwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 40
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) last week expressed serious concern over repeated and systemic lapses by officers of the Drugs Department in adhering to the mandatory timelines prescribed under Rule 45 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court observed that failure to analyse drug samples within the stipulated period not only vitiates prosecutions but also jeopardises public health by allowing sub-standard drugs to remain in circulation.
Case Title: Sailappan Sodali Muthu vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 41
The Bombay High Court has held that a notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), cannot be sustained if it is issued mechanically and without disclosing which specific statutory provisions have been contravened. The Court observed that the power under Section 314 can be exercised only upon the Commissioner recording satisfaction that there is a contravention of Sections 312, 313 or 313A of the MMC Act, and such satisfaction must be reflected on the face of the notice itself.
Case Title: Purbha Tulsa @ Tulsiram Dhutde vs Mohd Jafar Shaikh Ismail
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside an order passed by a Civil Court in Nanded, which imposed a punishment of one month civil prison on four members of a family for failing to abide by a decree passed against them. Sitting at Aurangabad, single-judge Justice Siddheshwar Thombre quashed and set aside an order passed on April 18, 2023 against Purbha and Damu Dhutde and their cousins - Bhagwan and Suman Dhutde.
Case Title: Gavit Gulabsingh Suka vs Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sastha (Kolhapur)
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 43
If a teacher on probation engages in constant messaging with a student after school hours, which could amount to harassment, then in such a situation, the school management can terminate the teacher's service invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, without conducting any enquiry etc, the Bombay High Court held recently.
Case Title: Union of India vs Lt. Col. SK Rathore
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 44
Observing that a pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet-will and pleasure of the government, the Bombay High Court recently upheld the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Mumbai, which granted 'disability' pension to Army and Navy personnel for sustaining diseases like Diabetes, Spondylitis, Hypertension etc on the ground that these 'disabilities' were attributable to their service or either aggravated during their service.
Case Title: Sunil Shankar Mohite vs Union of India
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 45
Merely because a hospital is not categorised or enlisted as one to be 'requisitioned' for Covid-19 treatment, is not ground to deny compensation to a health worker, who died of Covid19 virus while on duty, held the Kolhapur Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court recently, while ordering the authorities to pay the compensation to the husband of a nurse under the `Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package' (PMGKP).
Case Title: RB Bohora Education & Welfare Trust vs Vijay Mundaware
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 46
Observing that the powers of a Charity Commissioner under section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act are for 'supervision' and not for 'moral correction', the Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 29) quashed an order directing a Nashik-based School to issue public apology in two widely circulated newspapers there, after parents accused the School of 'cheating' them by misrepresenting that the institute was affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Board.
Caste Of Adopted Child Will Be Same As That Of Adoptive Parents: Bombay High Court
Case Title: GDA vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 47
The caste of an adopted child would be the same as that of his or her adoptive parents, held the Bombay High Court on January 29, while quashing the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Pune who cancelled the caste certificate issued to an adopted child. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Shriram Modak was dealing with a plea filed by a woman, who adopted a male child on August 22, 2014 which was permitted by a District Court in Pune under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Case Title: Joseph Achola Ouma vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 48
When a person, while being searched, is informed that he will be searched in the presence of a 'Gazetted' Officer, who is also member of the raiding party, then the same would not amount to 'compliance' to the mandatory provision of section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, held the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court while acquitting a Kenyan Nation, who was convicted for possessing cocaine and other drugs.
Other Developments
Abu Salem Moves Bombay High Court Seeking 14-Days Emergency Parole Leave To Mourn Brother's Death
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (January 6) ordered the Maharashtra Government to file a reply to a plea filed by underworld gangster Abu Salem–convicted in the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blast Case–who has sought 14-days 'emergency parole leave' in view of his elder brother's death. Salem, who is in prison for more than 2 decades now, has petitioned the division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak through his counsel Farhana Shah, seeking urgent parole leave.
Bidding adieu to the Bombay High Court, Justice Mahesh Sonak who would be taking charge of the office of Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court soon, on Wednesday urged the members of the Bar to always be vocal about anything that would affect the institution emphasising that 'it is a crime to remain silent when it is the duty to speak.'
In her farewell address organised at the Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 8) Justice Revati Mohite-Dere, who will be taking over the Office of Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court–asked the bar to "speak truth to power, challenge injustice and stand firmly for the voiceless". Notably, the Central Government had on January 1 notified the appointment of Justice Dere as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court with effect from the date she assumes charge consequent to the transfer of incumbent Chief Justice.
In what could spell trouble for industrialist Anil Ambani, three banks - Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and the IDBI Bank have moved the Bombay High Court challenging the order of a single-judge, who had stayed fraud classification proceedings initiated by the three banks, against the founder and chairman of the Reliance Group, after prima facie finding 'serious defects' in the forensic audit relied upon by the said banks.
The Maharashtra Government informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (January 13) that it has agreed to grant 2 days emergency parole to gangster and convict in 1993 Mumbai Blasts Case Abu Salem to meet his family. The State government however said that it has asked Salem to pay the escort charges adding that he cannot be released without an escort party since he is an "international criminal."
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant an ad-interim relief to former Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Eknath Khadse, who sought a stay on the proceedings pending before a Special Court to frame charges against him, his wife Mandakini Khadse and son-in-law Girish Chaudhari in a 2016 land deal.
Punching holes in the forensic audit report, relied by the consortium of banks to declare his loan accounts as 'fraud', industrialist Anil Ambani on Friday told the Bombay High Court that the auditor, who carried out the exercise to prepare a report was 'incompetent' and has given an 'inconclusive' finding.
Amid major political drama among the newly elected members of the Ambernath Municipal Council (AMC) in Thane city, with the arch rivals Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Congress joining hands to sideline Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde Faction), the Bombay High Court on Saturday halted for the time being, the formation of various Subject Committees such as the Public Health Committee, Public Works Committee, Education Committee etc till Monday.
The Bombay High Court on Monday criticised the Maratha Community protestors who had brought the city of Mumbai to a standstill in September 2025, for 'littering' the roads of the city and overstaying on the streets while demanding reservation for the community.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 22) issued notice to Maharashtra Government on a plea by YouTuber and United Kingdom (UK) based doctor Sangram Patil, booked for allegedly making 'objectionable' social media posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
Sharply criticising the Maharashtra Government for its failure to arrest Cabinet Minister Bharat Gogawale's son Vikas, who was booked in a rioting case regarding civic polls in Mahad, Raigad district, last month, on Thursday, the Bombay High Court remarked if Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis is 'so helpless' that he is unable to do anything in this case wherein the son of his own sitting minister is said to be 'absconding' but is in constant touch with the father.
Day After Bombay High Court Raps Maharashtra Govt, Minister's Son Surrenders In Mahad Rioting Case
A day after Bombay High Court came down heavily on the Maharashtra Government for its failure to arrest Cabinet Minister Bharat Gogawale's son Vikas, booked in a rioting case during civic polls in Mahad, Raigad, today the court was informed that Vikas and other accused in the case have surrendered before the local police.
The Bombay High Court on Friday criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) for the failure to bring down the rising levels of air pollution in Mumbai and neighbouring areas and therefore indicated that it may on the next date, pass 'coercive' orders of stopping the salaries of the Commissioners of both Mumbai and Navi Mumbai.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (January 27) orally expressed reluctance to monitor the efforts taken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and other authorities in bringing down the rising levels of air pollution in Mumbai and its neighbouring areas, stating that it cannot sit in the court and check if the compliances are made.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday told underworld gangster Abu Salem that if he wanted to avail emergency parole leaves to visit his native place in Uttar Pradesh's Azamgarh area in view of his brother's death, he will have to pay for the police escort party, which would accompany him.