Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 273 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302]Nominal IndexAbhijeet Arun Gade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 273Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust vs HDFC Bank Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 274Lt. Col. Retd. Jaigopal Nagarajan vs Vasudev Mariwala, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 275Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 276Swapnil Chandrakant Kashikar...
Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 273 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302]
Nominal Index
Abhijeet Arun Gade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 273
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust vs HDFC Bank Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 274
Lt. Col. Retd. Jaigopal Nagarajan vs Vasudev Mariwala, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 275
Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 276
Swapnil Chandrakant Kashikar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 277
Anil Dhirajlal Ambani vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 278
Rajan Bhagwandas Sujanani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 279
Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 280
Maharashtra Wrestling Association vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
Ramesh Bhaskar Utturkar vs Unmesh Trimbak Naravane, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
Mahendra Dharmaji Papal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
Warsha @ Eleekusumchand Javeri vs Rajan Suren Goregaonkar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
Jeetendra Krishna Varma vs Director General of Civil Aviation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
Bagasarwala Property LLP vs The Joint Charity Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
Madhavi Vilas Gosavi vs Rajesh Mishra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties, Bombay vs Katty J. Mistry, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
M/s. M.P. Homes vs State of Maharashtra 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
Siddesh Pradeep Satpute vs State Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. vs Nitin Jaywant Mhatre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Smita Virendra Patil, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
Manoj Balasaheb Dhanavade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
Shyam Vasant Kale vs The Assistant Charity Commissioner-II, Nagpur, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
Jervis Fernandes vs Rumaldo Judas Agnelo Fernandes, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
Manas Sandip Sathe vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
Suraj Deepak Mane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
BK Corporation vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 299
Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300
ANG vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
Final Orders/Judgments:
Case Title: Abhijeet Arun Gade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 273
The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man, who allegedly raped a young woman from October 2024 til April this year, under the pretext of soon offering her a role in a film. The High Court noted that the man, who had 'ill intentions' since beginning, had made the woman's private photos, viral and had "misused her trust".
Case Title: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust vs HDFC Bank Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 274
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 9) refused to pass an interim injunction against HDFC Bank and it's CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan to restrain them from making any statements against the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust or its Trustees Prashant or Charu Mehta. The court has also imposed a hefty cost of Rs 5 lakh on the Trust be paid to HDFC Bank within six weeks.
Case Title: Lt. Col. Retd. Jaigopal Nagarajan vs Vasudev Mariwala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 275
The Bombay High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question whether the Revisional Authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has the power to condone delay in a revision application filed by a landlord beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The Court observed that the issue assumes significance particularly in cases involving special categories of landlords, such as members of the armed forces, for whose benefit the special summary procedure under the Act was enacted.
Case Title: Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 276
The Bombay High Court has held the State of Maharashtra liable to pay compensation for the death of a patient who was killed by a violent inmate while undergoing treatment at the Yerwada Mental Hospital. The Court observed that the State failed in its duty to ensure the safety of patients in its custody.
Case Title: Swapnil Chandrakant Kashikar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 277
The Bombay High Court has held that the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and a person having serious criminal antecedents cannot be granted bail solely on the ground of long incarceration.
Case Title: Anil Dhirajlal Ambani vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 278
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 8) directed the Income Tax Department not to take any coercive action against industrialist and Reliance Group owner Anil Ambani under the provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 with regard to the alleged tax evasion of Rs 420 crore.
Case Title: Rajan Bhagwandas Sujanani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 279
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 9) refused to quash a Chargesheet under MCOCA filed against two developers accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy with gangster Ravi Pujari for threatening a fellow developer and extorting money from him over a pending litigation regarding a land parcel in city's posh Powai area.
Case Title: Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 280
A First Information Report (FIR) registered in sexual offences, cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay as the victim takes time to muster courage to lodge the complaint fearing the social stigma and also the 'uncomfortable' questions that she would be subjected to, held the Bombay High Court recently while quashing a section 354 (outraging modesty) case against a man, who molested a house help.
Bombay High Court Upholds De-Affiliation Of Sharad Pawar-Led State Wrestling Association From WFI
Case Title: Maharashtra Wrestling Association vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 15) upheld the de-affiliation of the NCP(SP) chief Sharad Pawar led Maharashtra State Wrestling Association (MSWA) from the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI). The WFI had on January 1, 2023 decided to de-affiliate the MSWA and replaced it with the Maharashtra Rajya Kustigir Sangh (MRKS).
Case Title: Ramesh Bhaskar Utturkar vs Unmesh Trimbak Naravane
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, is wide enough to cover a suit for re-possession filed by a tenant seeking restoration of possession from the landlord. The Court observed that where the relationship of landlord and tenant continues to subsist, a tenant seeking return of possession of the tenanted premises must approach the Small Causes Court, which alone has jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute.
Case Title: Mahendra Dharmaji Papal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
The Bombay High Court has held that a conviction for a forest offence is not a pre-condition for confiscation of a vehicle under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable in Maharashtra. The Court observed that the statutory scheme under Sections 61-A to 61-G empowers the authorised officer to confiscate forest produce and vehicles used in the commission of a forest offence, notwithstanding whether or not a prosecution has been instituted.
Case Title: Warsha @ Eleekusumchand Javeri vs Rajan Suren Goregaonkar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that a divorced woman though can continue to seek maintenance based on a decree, from the husband's estate or properties even after his death, however, she cannot seek enhancement of the same maintenance from the said estate after his death. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 284]
Case Title: Jeetendra Krishna Varma vs Director General of Civil Aviation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
The Bombay High Court has held that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) cannot suspend a pilot's licence without issuing a show-cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing merely because an FIR has been registered or allegations of forged documents have surfaced.
Case Title: Bagasarwala Property LLP vs The Joint Charity Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
The Bombay High Court has held that revocation of a sanction granted under Section 36(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act can be ordered under Section 36(2) only upon proof that the sanction was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of material facts. The Court observed that the jurisdiction under Section 36(2) is not appellate in nature and does not permit the Charity Commissioner to undertake a fresh assessment of the transaction or reconsider the correctness of the original sanction merely because another view may be possible on the same material.
Case Title: Madhavi Vilas Gosavi vs Rajesh Mishra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
The Bombay High Court has held that while computing the two-thirds majority required for passing a no-confidence motion against an officer of a co-operative housing society, the fractional figure cannot be ignored. The Court observed that since removal through a no-confidence motion carries serious consequences and stigma, the provisions governing such removal must be strictly construed.
Case Title: Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties, Bombay vs Katty J. Mistry
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
The Bombay High Court has held that an heir of a deceased tenant is not required to have been residing with the tenant at the time of death to inherit tenancy under Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The Court observed that where no family member was residing with the deceased tenant at the time of death, any heir of the deceased tenant can be recognized as a tenant, and the statute does not impose a condition that such heir must have been residing with the tenant.
Case Title: M/s. M.P. Homes vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
The Bombay High Court has held that lands classified as Tenure “D” under Rule 43 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921, i.e., lands granted in perpetuity, are freely transferable and fall within the category of Class-I occupancies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Consequently, the State cannot levy a transfer premium or insist upon prior permission for its transfer.
Case Title: Siddesh Pradeep Satpute vs State Bank of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
An alleged act of sexual harassment if occurring in a mode of transport not provided by the employer of either the accused or the victim, cannot be entertained under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act), held the Bombay High Court.
Bombay High Court Restores Dismissal Of Employee For Vulgar Remarks Against Koli Women
Case Title: Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. vs Nitin Jaywant Mhatre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
The Bombay High Court has upheld the dismissal of a man from his service, on the ground that he used filthy language against his employer and also the fisher women while he was tasked for driving the Koli community women and transporting their fish to market on a daily basis.
Case Title: Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Smita Virendra Patil
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
An employee after facing a 'routine' transfer, if complaints to the Police and brings policemen in the office premises to harass the employer is a misconduct, held the Bombay High Court recently. Further, the act of an employee making serious allegations about the employer to various authorities, both related and unrelated, on being transferred, too would amount to a misconduct, it added.
Case Title: Manoj Balasaheb Dhanavade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
The Bombay High Court recently, while quashing a rape FIR, ordered the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to circulate the details of the complainant woman to all the police stations across the State so that the police exercises caution in future on receiving any complaint from the said woman as she is "habitual" in filing false rape, domestic violence and cruelty cases.
Case Title: Shyam Vasant Kale vs The Assistant Charity Commissioner-II, Nagpur
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
The Bombay High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, is limited to issuing directions for the proper administration of a public trust and does not extend to interfering with an ongoing election process. The Court observed that once the election process has commenced, the Assistant Charity Commissioner cannot invoke Section 41A to quash an election notice or halt the election on the ground that the legality of the existing Managing Committee is under doubt.
Case Title: Jervis Fernandes vs Rumaldo Judas Agnelo Fernandes
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
The Bombay High Court has held that the power to remove a Municipal Councillor under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, vests exclusively in the Government and cannot be exercised by the Director of Municipal Administration. The Court observed that the power under Section 44 is quasi-judicial in nature, as it entails adjudication of allegations of misconduct or disgraceful conduct and may result in removal from office and disqualification for five years.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 22) permitted a married woman to terminate her 26-weeks pregnancy after noting that the woman hailed from the lower strata of the society and that her foetus suffered from severe anomalies, which would require post-delivery cardiac surgeries that she can't afford.
Case Title: Manas Sandip Sathe vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
Dismissing a petition seeking admission in a school under the 'neighbourhood' reservation provided under the Right To Education (RTE) Act, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 25) held that residential requirement is not an empty formality but is an essential eligibility criteria for admissions under the said quota, which provides admission of people from the weaker section and lower strata of the society in nearby private unaided schools.
Case Title: Suraj Deepak Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge to the recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge by nomination in the Maharashtra Judicial Service. The Court held that candidates who participated in the selection process with full knowledge that it would be governed by the amendments approved by the High Court, though not formally notified on the date of the advertisement, could not challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examination.
Case Title: BK Corporation vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 299
The Bombay High Court has held that where an earlier order rejecting a deemed conveyance application has attained finality, a second application seeking the same relief would be barred by principles of res judicata and finality of proceedings. The Court observed that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act does not possess any inherent power of review and cannot reopen or reconsider an issue already decided unless such power is expressly conferred by statute.
Case Title: Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300
The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an extortion FIR lodged against a Pune-based woman who entered into a second marriage while her first marriage was subsisting, and demanded alimony from the second husband by misusing the law. Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale in an order pronounced on June 10, noted that the Petitioner performed her second marriage in September 2015 when her first marriage continued to subsist.
Case Title: ANG vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
The act of a husband chatting or speaking to his sister-in-law (bhabhi) and engraving her son's name on his own hand cannot be brought under the ambit of section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty towards a spouse, held the Bombay High Court. It quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man's sister-in-law, with whom, his wife alleged he had an 'extra-marital' affair.
Case Title: Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
The Bombay High Court recently held that the arrest of a person after the filing of chargesheet against already arrested co-accused is not illegal merely because the arrested person was not provided with a copy of the chargesheet along with the grounds of arrest
Other Developments:
Justice Ravindra Ghuge Appointed As Acting Chief Justice Of Bombay High Court
The Central Government on Monday (June 1) notified the appointment of Justice Ravindra Ghuge as the Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. This comes after the HC's Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was elevated to the Supreme Court.
Retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel and his family have allegedly been subjected to threats and acts of violence across India and the United Kingdom for nearly ten months in connection with his 2024 judgment deciding the long-running Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute, according to a report published by the Hindustan Times.
Bombay Bar Association Condemns Threats & Attacks On Justice Gautam Patel's Family Over Judgment
Condemning the threats issued to former Bombay High Court judge Justice (retd) Gautam Patel and his family, the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has called for thorough investigation of the incident and has urged the Ministry of External Affairs to ensure the safety of the judge's family members living in England.
Six Additional Judges Sworn-In As Permanent Judges Of Bombay High Court
Six Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court were sworn-in on Tuesday (June 9) as Permanent Judges of the High Court after the Central Government last week notified their permanent appointments. Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge administered the oath of office to the judges sitting at the Principal Seat while Justice Anil Kilor, the Administrative Judge at the Nagpur bench administered oath of office to the judges sitting at Nagpur.
Threats Against Justice Gautam Patel's Family : Bar Bodies File PIL In High Court Seeking SIT Probe
Days after condemning the threats and attacks on the family members of former Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel over his judgment deciding the spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra Community, the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has filed a PIL seeking court's intervention and directions for safety of the judge and his family.
Days after the news pertaining to the dire threats being issued to Bombay High Court's former judge Justice Gautam Patel and his family members and the attack on his daughter in London, the family has been provided with security and protection by the Hertfordshire Constabulary.
"Just because one has access to social media does not mean they can upload videos about any person, whether a common citizen or a celebrity, merely to defame them," the Bombay High Court remarked on Thursday (June 11), while directing Ketan Kakkad, a neighbour of Bollywood actor Salman Khan's Panvel farmhouse, to consider deleting tweets and videos posted by him, or containing statements made by him, concerning the ongoing dispute between the two over their properties.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (June 12) issued notice on petition by 85-year-old Telugu Poet P Varavara Rao, accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Bhima Koregaon case, seeking permission to move to Hyderabad stating that living in Mumbai is not affordable for him. Rao, has challenged a March 16 order passed by a special NIA Court, which dismissed his application to reside in Hyderabad.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 11) expressed that it was not prima facie inclined to allow Janhavi Gadkar, the corporate lawyer booked in the high-profile drunk driving case, to sell her Audi Q5 car, which had collided with a taxi on the Eastern Freeway and killed two persons in June 2015. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar, said that permitting to sell the vehicle in question would amount to 'destruction' of primary evidence in the case.
The Bombay High Court has upheld an interim order restraining Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. from using the title "The New Indian Express" outside the southern states for which it was granted rights. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said there was no "perversity" in the order passed by the single-judge holding that prima facie the trademark "Indian Express" is exclusively owned by The Indian Express (P) Ltd.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 15) directed the Maharashtra Government to ensure protection is granted to former high court judge Justice Gautam Patel, who has been facing threats over a 2024 judgment he delivered with regards to the spiritual head of the Dawoodi Bohra community.
ILS Law College and the Indian Law Society have moved the Bombay High Court, challenging a communication issued by the Savitribai Phule Pune University fixing the quantum of "Other Fees" chargeable for LL.B. and B.A. LL.B. programmes from the academic year 2026-27. The petitioners contend that the University's decision is arbitrary, was taken without any proposal from the institution, without inquiry or hearing, and has the effect of drastically reducing the fees previously charged by the college.
The Bombay High Court recently ordered a hacking group - FulcrumSec not to leak or make public, the 'stolen' sensitive information pertaining to children from thousands of schools in Mumbai and abroad run by Pratiksha Foundation Charitable Trust, for which the group has demanded USD 750,000.
A group of practising advocates has approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the ongoing recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge in Maharashtra, contending that serving judicial officers have been illegally permitted to compete under the 25% direct recruitment quota reserved exclusively for practising advocates.
The Bombay High Court while emphasising on the importance of trees, recently made it clear that compensatory afforestation, which is usually done after cutting down trees for a development work, cannot be permitted to be done at a distant or remote place and rather must be done in the close proximity of the very place from where the trees were initially felled.
The Indian National Congress (INC) has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025 arguing that it violates the fundamental guarantees enshrined in the Constitution of India including principles of reasonableness and proportionality, freedom of speech and expression, etc.
Even after 75 years of independence, if a citizen has to approach a constitutional court seeking a direction to the State to provide potable drinking water, in such a circumstance, a progressive State like Maharashtra cannot be heard to be giving excuses for not providing the relief, observed the Bombay High Court on Monday (June 22) while noting that several parts across the State are not getting drinking water.
While bidding adieu to the Bombay High Court, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi on Tuesday (June 23) said that for achieving the satisfaction of his or her work, a judge must do his job to the best of his ability and not by trying to satisfy or please anyone. Justice Kankanwadi, who was elevated to the High Court 9 years ago, retired from service after being a judge for a total of 34 years.
Bombay High Court judge Justice Ashish Chavan on Wednesday recused from hearing a plea filed by Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, the former manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. In his plea, the father has alleged that his daughter was "murdered" and did not commit suicide.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 25) while imposing a cost of Rs 15,000 on producer Suneel Darshan, allowed to restore his appeal filed against a judgment delivered way back in 2015 by a single-judge, who dismissed two arbitration petitions filed by the filmmaker and Bollywood Actor Sunny Deol raising claims against each other.
The Bombay High Court earlier this week refused to pass a gag order restraining popular local YouTube news channel Galli News from reporting on allegations of negligence against a city-based hospital over claims that a surgical gauze was left inside a woman's body. However, single-judge Justice Arif Doctor restrained the news channel from using certain 'defamatory' words such as 'Kattalkhana' (slaughterhouse) for the Habib Esmail Hospital and Medical Trust, situated in Pydhonie area of Mumbai.
"It's Been Two Decades, Wake Up Now" Bombay High Court Criticises BMC Over Potholed Roads In Mumbai
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 29) sharply criticised the the Brihanmumbai Municipal Commissioner (BMC) over its failure to resolve the issue of poor roads in Mumbai for the last 20 years.A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata said it's high time that the BMC must "wake up" to reality and finally put an end to the issue of bad roads and potholed roads in the city.