Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 155]Magnum Unit 'A' CHS Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89Shivkrupa Sahakari Patpedhi Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 90Supriya Gaurav Devare vs Gaurav Jitendra Patil, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 91Mahendra Sabharu Majhi vs M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 92Auto-Taxi, Ola-Uber Men's Union...
Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 155]
Magnum Unit 'A' CHS Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
Shivkrupa Sahakari Patpedhi Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
Supriya Gaurav Devare vs Gaurav Jitendra Patil, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
Mahendra Sabharu Majhi vs M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
Auto-Taxi, Ola-Uber Men's Union vs Adani Airport Holdings Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
GTL Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
Geetabai Eknath Salunke vs Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs The District Deputy Registrar Co-op Soc, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
Quantum Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs AHCL-PEL, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
Shekhar Champalal Pagaria & Ors. vs CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
Ravidas vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
Jijabhau Dyaneshwar Temgire vs Gangaram Khandu Temgire, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
Govindrao Shankarrao Gaikwad vs The Ganesh Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
Md Arif Lalan Khan alias Naseem Khan vs Dilip Bhausaheb Lande, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
SS vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
Nagmani Ramnna Burumuri vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
Gopiki Soma Lingudkar vs Deputy Collector, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
Bholenath Mevalal Nishad vs Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
Sachin Chandramani Wankhede vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Nandkumar Narsingrao Pupala vs Dr. Pratapsingrao Pupala, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company vs Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
State of Maharashtra vs Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
Phonographic Performance Limited vs Absolute Legend Sports Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
Jerry Philips Jacob vs National Investigation Agency, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
Bhalchandra Chintaman Deo vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
Hope of Glory Ministry Trust vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
Vijay vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
Ebrahim Mia Mahomed Haji Janmahomed Chotani vs The Official Assignee of Bombay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
Narayan Dattarao Sontakke vs Nagnath Dattarao Sontakke, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
Ashish Chaman Fulzele vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Rekha Rupchand Singh (Deleted) vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
Sampatrao Ramrao Teli vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
Bhupesh Tukaram Meshram vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
Subhash Mahadu Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
Victoria Enterprises Limited vs DNM Trustee Service Private Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
Union of India vs Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
Sunil Waman Bhide vs Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
Gajanan Namdeo Oge vs Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
Anup Ganpat Gondkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
Municipal Council of Pusad vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
Rajani Ravindra Pol vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
Khandesh vs Late Taisaheb Sunanda, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Malan Anil Holkar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs Town Vending Committee - MCGM, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. vs General Manager, Central Railway, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
NBG International Private Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
State of Maharashtra vs Vilas Annasaheb Mahale, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
Narendra Lalachan Mehta vs Nayana Manoj Vasani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
Arun Iyer vs Board of Governors, IIT Bombay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
Vincent Philip D'Costa vs Stella Lawrence Freitas, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
M/s. CB Healthcare vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
Rohidas Band Kumavat vs Union Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
Deelip Gopalsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
M/s 63 Moons Technologies Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
Dheeraj Dreams Building No.1 CHS Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
State of Maharashtra vs Robin, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 149
Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
Late Kashinath Shivram Bharati vs Laxman Gyanba Bharati, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
M/s Lahoti Properties vs Gangabhishan, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
Rameshwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
Dr. Lalchand Jumani vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Magnum Unit 'A' CHS Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
The Bombay High Court has held that once a quasi-judicial authority has adjudicated an application for deemed conveyance on merits and rejected it without granting liberty to file a fresh application, it cannot subsequently take a contrary view on the same issue merely because a fresh application is presented in a modified form. The Court observed that such a course would undermine the principle of finality, as every unsuccessful applicant could simply alter the measurements or reframe the relief and compel the authority to decide the same issue again.
Case Title: Shivkrupa Sahakari Patpedhi Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
The Bombay High Court has held that a Special Report submitted under Section 81(5B) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and an order directing inquiry under Section 88 are not “orders” or “decisions” amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act. The Court observed that if Section 154 is interpreted to include audit reports under Section 81, the parties would challenge reports before inquiry even begins, and the inquiry contemplated under Section 88 would become redundant because proceedings would be stalled at the threshold.
'Divorce Decree Cannot Be Granted By Relying Merely On Whatsapp Chat': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Supriya Gaurav Devare vs Gaurav Jitendra Patil
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
The Bombay High Court has held that a decree of divorce cannot be granted merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats without proper proof through evidence. The Court observed that allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must be established through legally admissible evidence, and the opposing party must be given an opportunity to rebut the material relied upon.
Case Title: Mahendra Sabharu Majhi vs M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
The Bombay High Court has held that an application for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured workman. The Court observed that the Act only requires the certificate to be issued by a “qualified medical practitioner” and does not mandate that such a practitioner must have treated the injured.
Case Title: Auto-Taxi, Ola-Uber Men's Union vs Adani Airport Holdings Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
The Bombay High Court on Thursday, while refusing to permit Muslim drivers and passengers to offer Namaz at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), even for the limited period of Ramadan, made it clear that it cannot, at any cost, compromise the security of the airport and whether it is religion or something else, court will only favour security.
Case Title: GTL Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
The Bombay High Court has held that an investigating agency cannot continue a criminal investigation merely in the hope of discovering unknown accused persons when the preliminary enquiry does not disclose the commission of any prima facie offence. The Court observed that the machinery of criminal law cannot be set in motion to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry where the material collected during the preliminary enquiry itself fails to reveal deception, conspiracy, or fraudulent conduct.
Case Title: Geetabai Eknath Salunke vs Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
The Bombay High Court has held that compensation determined in proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be restricted only to the amount awarded in the “foundational award” relied upon for redetermination. The Court observed that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision enacted to remove inequality in compensation between landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification, and therefore, the power of redetermination cannot be narrowly construed to limit compensation strictly to the rate awarded in the foundational award.
Case Title: Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs The District Deputy Registrar Co-op Soc
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
The Bombay High Court has held that internal agreements or contractual clauses between the promoter and flat purchasers cannot override the statutory mandate of granting deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The Court observed that once construction is completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the society is formed, the promoter's obligation to convey his right, title and interest in the land and building becomes absolute, subject only to what is reflected in the sanctioned plan and law.
Case Title: Quantum Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs AHCL-PEL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
The Bombay High Court has held that pendency of a civil suit concerning alleged construction irregularities or inter se disputes between promoters does not bar the grant of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The Court observed that an order of deemed conveyance does not finally adjudicate title and that civil disputes regarding FSI utilisation or additional floors cannot be treated as a blanket prohibition against the exercise of statutory power.
Case Title: Shekhar Champalal Pagaria & Ors. vs CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
The Bombay High Court has held that the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur does not automatically divest the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court of jurisdiction in matters where the original and appellate authorities whose orders are challenged are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. The Court observed that the order passed by an appellate authority constitutes a substantial part of the cause of action, and therefore, the High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction such authority is situated, continues to have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.
Case Title: Ravidas vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
The Bombay High Court has held that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot be based merely on documents collected during an investigation unless their contents are proved through competent witnesses who can speak to their authenticity. The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer has duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties.
Case Title: Jijabhau Dyaneshwar Temgire vs Gangaram Khandu Temgire
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
The Bombay High Court has held that a defendant is not required to file a separate application for the production of documents that are sought to be used for confronting a witness during cross-examination, provided such documents are not foreign to the pleadings in the case. The Court observed that the Civil Procedure Code expressly carves out an exception permitting production of documents at the stage of cross-examination for the purposes of contradicting a witness or refreshing the witness's memory.
Case Title: Govindrao Shankarrao Gaikwad vs The Ganesh Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
The Bombay High Court has held that the requirement of depositing 50% of the recoverable dues under Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is mandatory even when a revision application challenges only consequential or derivative actions taken pursuant to a recovery certificate and not the recovery certificate itself. The Court observed that permitting litigants to avoid the statutory deposit requirement by challenging only execution steps would defeat the legislative purpose of ensuring speedy recovery of dues of co-operative societies.
Case Title: Md Arif Lalan Khan alias Naseem Khan vs Dilip Bhausaheb Lande
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
A mere visit to a constituency by a 'Star Campaigner' on the polling day would not be enough to constitute 'undue influence' or 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of People Act of 1951, held the Bombay High Court. The High Court also refused to accept that a mere visit by then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in Mumbai's Chandivali area during the 2025 State Assembly elections, which was later converted into a 'road show', on the polling day itself, was an attempt to interfere with the elections.
Case Title: SS vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
A girl would not accuse her father of a serious charge like rape only on an apprehension that he would discontinue her studies and get her married, said the Bombay High Court while rejecting a theory of 'false implication' raised by a man convicted for raping his own minor daughter.
Case Title: Nagmani Ramnna Burumuri vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court recently held that the cases pertaining to accidental deaths of railway employees in train accidents, should never land in courts or tribunals and instead, the Railways must themselves go through the case file and grant compensation to the family of the deceased. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain held that the Railways must not compel the family members of the deceased employee to run from pillar to post.
Case Title: Gopiki Soma Lingudkar vs Deputy Collector
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
The Bombay High Court has flagged serious procedural irregularities being followed by revenue authorities in Goa while exercising quasi-judicial powers under various local laws and has issued directions to streamline the process of pronouncing orders and issuing certified copies. The Court observed that the lack of a proper procedure in recording orders, pronouncing judgments, and issuing certified copies creates uncertainty in computing limitation periods.
Case Title: Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
The Bombay High Court has held that decisions relating to the grant or denial of security clearance in projects of strategic importance fall primarily within the domain of the executive and are closely connected to considerations of national security. The Court observed that while judicial review is available in limited circumstances, courts ordinarily exercise restraint in matters involving national security, diplomatic relations, and strategic assessments undertaken by the Union Government.
Case Title: Bholenath Mevalal Nishad vs Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
The Bombay High Court has held that an application filed by a senior citizen seeking eviction of a child or relative from property in which the senior citizen has rights is maintainable even if no monetary maintenance is claimed. The Court observed that the definition of “maintenance” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, includes provision for residence and protection necessary for a senior citizen to live a normal and dignified life.
Case Title: Sachin Chandramani Wankhede vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
The role of a lawyer in the society is to help an individual by finding out a solution to one's dispute and not to loot their money, observed the Bombay High Court recently while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against a lawyer, who allegedly 'convinced' his client to pay Rs 1.25 lakhs bribe to two police officers so that the client's son could get 'better facilities' in jail.
Case Title: Nandkumar Narsingrao Pupala vs Dr. Pratapsingrao Pupala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
The Bombay High Court has held that service of citation to the next of kin is not mandatory in a petition filed under Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of Letters of Administration of an estate not fully administered, and the Court may dispense with such citation in appropriate cases. The Court observed that when probate of a will has already been granted after considering objections of the next of kin, a subsequent petition under Sections 258 and 259 merely seeks appointment of a new representative to administer the unadministered portion of the estate and does not reopen issues already settled at the stage of the original grant.
Case Title: Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company vs Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
The Bombay High Court has held that a municipal authority cannot refuse to grant a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by disregarding a subsisting civil court decree merely on the ground that an appeal against the decree is pending. The Court observed that under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filing of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decree, and unless the decree is stayed by the appellate court, it continues to remain operative and binding on the parties.
Failure To Examine Forensic Experts Whose Reports Are Relied Upon Vitiates Trial: Bombay High Court
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
The Bombay High Court has held that failure to summon and examine forensic experts whose reports are relied upon by the trial court vitiates the trial and constitutes a failure of justice. The Court observed that the whole purpose of the trial is to ascertain the truth of the matter and all steps in the direction of unearthing the truth ought to be taken by the Court, even if the prosecution is remiss in its duty and the accused at the relevant point in time has not shown awareness.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Absolute Legend Sports Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
The Bombay High Court on Thursday restrained the Absolute Legend Sports Pvt. Ltd. which is organising the Legend League Cricket (LLC), a T20 tournament featuring retired international cricket players, from using the songs copyrighted by the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) in its tournament which commenced from March 11.
Case Title: Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
The Bombay High Court has held that when a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has already determined the nature of a transaction between parties, such findings operate as res judicata and are binding on authorities exercising powers under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The Court observed that statutory authorities under the Act cannot record findings contrary to the adjudication of the Civil Court regarding the character of the transaction.
Case Title: Jerry Philips Jacob vs National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
The Bombay High Court recently refused to release a 46-year-old man on bail, who was booked by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for being the 'mastermind' of an international job racket, wherein educated youth from India were 'trafficked' abroad and were then forced to work in fake call centres in Laos and dupe Americans and Britishers by convincing them to invest in cryptocurrency.
Case Title: Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
The Bombay High Court has held that the import of cosmetics into India requires a mandatory registration certificate from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) even if the goods are brought into India only for warehousing and intended re-export. The Court observed that once goods are brought into India, the act constitutes “import” within the meaning of the Customs Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and therefore compliance with the regulatory framework governing import of cosmetics is mandatory irrespective of whether the goods are meant for domestic sale or eventual re-export.
Case Title: Bhalchandra Chintaman Deo vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
The Bombay High Court has held that litigants who indulge in material suppression of facts while invoking writ jurisdiction cannot claim the benefit of leniency in delay on the ground of violation of the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. The Court observed that although the right to property is a constitutional right, litigants approaching the writ court must do so with clean hands.
Case Title: Hope of Glory Ministry Trust vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
The Bombay High Court last week quashed an order, by which Sangli Police 'abruptly' cancelled the permission granted to 'Hope of Glory Ministry Trust' to conduct 'Maharashtra Prayer Festival' from March 13 to March 15, wherein popular evangelist Paul Dhinakaran delivered 'prophetic' messages and daily prayers before over 50,000 persons.
Case Title: Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
The Bombay High Court recently commuted a man's life imprisonment for murdering his own brother to 10 year imprisonment under culpable homicide not amounting to murder after noting that he murdered the brother, because he had vices like consuming tobacco and gutka and often quarrelled and even assaulted him (convict) and their aged mother whenever they advised him against the vices.
Case Title: Vijay vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concern over the practice of education authorities keeping proposals relating to teachers' inclusion in the Shalarth system pending for months or even years, resulting in teachers being deprived of their lawful salaries. The Court observed that once the appointment of a teacher on an aided post has been duly approved, inclusion of the teacher's name in the Shalarth Pranali for salary disbursement is a consequential administrative step and cannot be indefinitely delayed by the authorities.
Case Title: Ebrahim Mia Mahomed Haji Janmahomed Chotani vs The Official Assignee of Bombay
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
The Bombay High Court has ordered the partition of a property in Pune's Yerawada area, bringing partial closure to a family dispute that has been pending since 1950. The Court directed that the remaining portion of the land be divided among the concerned parties according to a plan prepared by an architect and approved by the Court.
Case Title: Narayan Dattarao Sontakke vs Nagnath Dattarao Sontakke
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
The Bombay High Court has held that delay in filing a written statement may be condoned in partition suits where denial of such opportunity would prevent effective adjudication of the rights of the parties. The Court observed that refusal to permit a defendant to file a written statement may hinder proper determination of rights in the property and prolong the litigation.
Case Title: Ashish Chaman Fulzele vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to remove the distance limit imposed for admissions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), observing that such restrictions may defeat the purpose of provision under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act.
Case Title: Rekha Rupchand Singh (Deleted) vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
The Bombay High Court has held that a compensation claim arising out of a railway accident cannot be rejected merely because there is a minor variation in the passenger's name appearing on the season ticket when the identity card number mentioned on the ticket matches and establishes the identity of the passenger. The Court observed that if the identity of the passenger is otherwise proved through reliable material such as the identity card issued by the railway authorities, a clerical or truncated name printed on the ticket cannot defeat the statutory right to claim compensation.
Case Title: Sampatrao Ramrao Teli vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
The scheme for reserving 25 per cent seats for the underprivileged under the Right To Education (RTE) Act is designed to distribute educational opportunities among as many eligible children but the said scheme does not confer a right on a parent to seek allocation of a seat multiple times for the same child, held the Bombay High Court recently.
Case Title: Bhupesh Tukaram Meshram vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
The Bombay High Court has held that dismissal from service based on findings in departmental proceedings cannot be sustained where the delinquent employee has been acquitted in a criminal trial arising from the same incident and based on identical evidence. The Court observed that where the charges, witnesses, evidence, and circumstances in both proceedings are substantially the same, allowing the departmental findings to stand after acquittal in the criminal case would be unjust and oppressive.
Case Title: Subhash Mahadu Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
The Bombay High Court has held that in cases involving the alleged cultivation of cannabis under the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish through cogent evidence that the accused was actually cultivating the plants, and not merely present at the spot or named in land records. The Court observed that asking the accused to prove that he was not cultivating the land would amount to imposing an impermissible negative burden contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Case Title: Victoria Enterprises Limited vs DNM Trustee Service Private Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
The Bombay High Court has held that an objection regarding improper joinder of causes of action raises a triable issue and cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court observed that such objections require adjudication on evidence and cannot justify dismissal of a suit at the threshold.
Case Title: Union of India vs Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss a suit as infructuous when subsequent events render the original cause of action non-existent. The Court observed that it is the duty of the court to terminate infructuous litigation, and it cannot retain such suits merely to preserve interim orders or on speculative future claims.
Case Title: Sunil Waman Bhide vs Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
The Bombay High Court has held that questions relating to title or ownership of property cannot be adjudicated in probate proceedings and that a person who challenges the testator's title to the property bequeathed under a will is a stranger to probate jurisdiction. The Court observed that probate proceedings are confined to examining the genuineness and due execution of the will, and any dispute concerning ownership of the property must be adjudicated in independent civil proceedings.
Case Title: Gajanan Namdeo Oge vs Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
The Bombay High Court has held that employees absorbed from Gram Panchayats into a Municipal Corporation are entitled to parity in pay with regular employees if they perform identical duties. The Court observed that denial of equal pay for equal work in such circumstances amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Anup Ganpat Gondkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
The Bombay High Court has held that an order directing closure or eviction of premises under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, does not require a prior conviction of the owner, occupier or lessor. The Court observed that Section 18(1) is a preventive provision enabling action based on material indicating use of premises as a brothel, whereas the requirement of conviction applies only to proceedings under Section 18(2).
Case Title: Municipal Council of Pusad vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot freeze bank accounts or recover provident fund dues without issuing a fresh notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The Court observed that reliance on a stale notice issued several years earlier violates principles of natural justice and renders the recovery action unsustainable.
Case Title: Rajani Ravindra Pol vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
The Bombay High Court has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal is not an expert body competent to conclude that death occurred due to trespass merely on the basis of the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court observed that in the absence of cogent evidence or expert testimony, such findings are unsustainable and cannot be used to deny compensation under the Railways Act.
Case Title: Khandesh vs Late Taisaheb Sunanda
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 24 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, does not bar a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit for refund of earnest money even after dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The Court observed that while Section 24 bars claims for compensation in certain circumstances, it does not extinguish the right to seek other reliefs such as a refund of earnest money arising from the same transaction.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd vs Malan Anil Holkar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
Just because a student scores average or below average marks does not mean s/he would not be able to earn well after becoming a professional and thus there cannot be any justification to claim any 'direct connection' between the marks obtained and the potential to earn in future, held the Bombay High Court recently while enhancing compensation in a Motor Vehicle Accident matter.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
The Bombay High Court was recently 'aghast' to note a 'shocking' incident wherein a Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) on a minor rape victim failed, resulting in the birth of a baby girl of nearly 26 weeks, who was 'starved to death' by the doctors at the District Civil Hospital in Maharashtra's Satara. Sitting at the Kolhapur seat, a division bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar and Justice Pravin Patil ordered a 'thorough' enquiry into the incident especially because the Civil Surgeon had on a previous date informed the judges that the MTP was 'successful.'
Case Title: Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs Town Vending Committee - MCGM
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
The Bombay High Court on Monday (March 23) ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Police to conduct a 'thorough' verification of the identity of all the hawkers on the streets of the city and check if there are any 'Bangladeshis' or other 'immigrants' involved in hawking activities, and if found, the authorities have been ordered to take 'appropriate' action against them.
Case Title: Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. vs General Manager, Central Railway
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
The Bombay High Court has held that long-standing contractors cannot claim an exclusive or perpetual right to continue merely on the ground that their livelihood depends on the activity. The Court observed that ensuring a fair and transparent tender process providing equal opportunity to all similarly placed persons cannot be curtailed to preserve existing contractors' interests.
Case Title: NBG International Private Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
The Bombay High Court has held that customs authorities cannot disregard clearance granted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and subject imported goods to re-testing without any cogent justification. The Court observed that once a competent statutory authority like FSSAI certifies goods as compliant and fit for human consumption, questioning such certification without valid reasons is arbitrary and without authority of law.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Vilas Annasaheb Mahale
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (March 24) set aside a judgment of a Nashik Sessions Court awarding death sentence to a man convicted for raping and killing a minor girl, on the ground that the accused had no legal representation during the trial and therefore, remanded the matter back to the sessions court to conduct the trial afresh.
Case Title: Narendra Lalachan Mehta vs Nayana Manoj Vasani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of material facts to substantiate allegations of suppression in an election petition constitutes non-compliance with Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. The Court observed that failure to plead essential facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action renders the election petition liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Case Title: Arun Iyer vs Board of Governors, IIT Bombay
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
The Bombay High Court has held that an employer can impose a penalty on an employee based on the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act without conducting a separate departmental inquiry or issuing a formal charge-sheet. The Court observed that the ICC report constitutes an inquiry report under the statutory scheme, and requiring a second inquiry would amount to an impermissible duplication of proceedings.
Case Title: Vincent Philip D'Costa vs Stella Lawrence Freitas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
The Bombay High Court has held that a graphologist's report cannot be admitted as expert evidence to determine the testator's state of mind unless its relevance and scientific basis are demonstrated in terms of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that in the absence of showing that graphology is a recognised science capable of assisting the Court, such opinion cannot be treated as admissible expert evidence.
Case Title: M/s. CB Healthcare vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
The Bombay High Court has held that a Sessions Court cannot take direct cognisance of offences under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate, as required under Section 193 of the CrPC. The Court observed that in the absence of any express provision in the Act permitting such direct cognisance, the statutory procedure under the CrPC must be followed.
Case Title: Rohidas Band Kumavat vs Union Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
A passenger trying to de-board a train at a station where the train does not halt and sustains an injury, the said injury cannot be termed as a 'self-inflicted injury' but would constitute an 'untoward incident' qualifying such a passenger to seek compensation under section 124A of the Railways Act, held the Bombay High Court on March 24.
Case Title: Deelip Gopalsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
The Bombay High Court has held that assault on public servants by a private individual, particularly in the course of unlawful agitation, constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court observed that such acts reflect a breach of social duty and undermine public order, thereby falling within the concept of depravity and conduct contrary to accepted standards of society.
Case Title: M/s 63 Moons Technologies Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
The Bombay High Court earlier this month made it clear to Jignesh Shah and 63 Moons Technologies Limited, the alleged accused in the multicore National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) Scam, that just because the National Companies Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved the One Time Settlement (OTS) for 5,682 traders, it will not exonerate them from the pending criminal cases.
Case Title: Dheeraj Dreams Building No.1 CHS Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
The Bombay High Court has held that a co-operative housing society can refuse membership to a purchaser where the builder has purported to sell a “refuge area” as a residential flat, as admitting such a person would violate Section 154B-5 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Court observed that where the flats in question do not exist, and membership would exceed the number of permissible units, the society is justified in refusing admission.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Robin
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)149
The Bombay High Court has held that the circulation of spurious drugs poses a serious threat to public health and weakens public trust in healthcare systems. The Court observed that offences involving the supply of fake medicines to government hospitals are grave in nature and cannot be treated lightly at the stage of grant of bail.
Case Title: Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)150
The Bombay High Court on Friday (March 27) dismissed a petition seeking CBI probe against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its director Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani for allegedly stealing over USD 1.55 billion worth of natural gas from neighbouring Oil and Natural Gas Corporations (ONGC) wells in the Krishna Godavari Basin, off the coast of Andhra Pradesh.
Case Title: Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
In a major respite for Adani Group's— Adani Green Energy Ltd., the Bombay High Court on Friday (March 27) dismissed a plea which sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the allegations made against the company for allegedly paying crores of bribes to secure solar power contracts across several States in India.
Case Title: Late Kashinath Shivram Bharati vs Laxman Gyanba Bharati
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)152
The Bombay High Court has held that where a brother cultivates agricultural land belonging to his widowed sister, such cultivation would fall within the category of a “family member” and not give rise to a deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Court observed that permissive cultivation by a close family member, particularly in the context of a widow, does not create tenancy rights in the absence of clear evidence of intention to create a tenancy.
Case Title: M/s Lahoti Properties vs Gangabhishan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)153
The Bombay High Court has held that where a plaintiff withdraws a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, he cannot seek additional reliefs in the subsequent suit unless specific liberty to claim such reliefs was obtained. The Court observed that omission to claim available reliefs in the earlier suit attracts the bar under Order II Rule 2 and Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the CPC, rendering the subsequent suit not maintainable.
Case Title: Rameshwar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)154
The Bombay High Court has held that a disabled employee who is shifted to another post or cadre under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act cannot claim seniority in the new cadre based on past service in the previous post. The Court observed that while the statute protects continuity of pay and service benefits, it does not permit disturbance of the existing seniority of employees already working in the cadre to which the disabled employee is shifted.
Case Title: Dr. Lalchand Jumani vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)155
The Bombay High Court has held that the acquittal of an employee in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him to full pay and back wages for the period of suspension. The Court observed that entitlement to full salary depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion exercised by the competent authority under applicable service regulations.
Other Developments
Bombay High Court Judge Duped Of Rs 6 Lakhs In Online Credit Card Fraud
A sitting Bombay High Court judge last week, filed a complaint with the Mumbai Police alleging that she has been duped in an online credit card fraud to the tune of Rs 6 lakhs. The female judge, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against an unknown person, who claimed to be a representative of the HDFC Bank's credit card department and defrauded her of Rs 6 lakhs.
The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench on Thursday issued notices to the Union government, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Confidence Petroleum India Limited on a petition filed by six LPG distributors alleging inadequate supply of domestic cooking gas cylinders.
The Bombay High Court recently sought an explanation from the Mumbai Sessions Court as to why, despite a clear order to record the statements of a Bangladeshi woman, a victim of immoral trafficking, was not recorded till date as she has to be repatriated to her country and is presently being looked after by an NGO in India.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday closed a petition highlighting the shortage of LPG cylinders for local consumers, after the Central Government assured that it is taking all possible steps both internationally and domestically to ensure there is no hardship to citizens.
The Bombay High Court on Monday permitted UK-based Doctor and YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil to file an affidavit assuring that even if he is allowed to return to United Kingdom, he will continue co-operating with the ongoing investigations against him for his allegedly defamatory social media post against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
While hearing petitions challenging the Maharashtra Government's decision to appoint outgoing Sarpanchs of over 14,500 Gram Panchayats as Administrators of their respective Gram Panchayats, the Bombay High Court recently restrained such Administrators from taking any major decisions particularly with respect to expenditures or policies etc, till further orders.
Observing that the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) has forced a 'competition' between a Mercedes owner and a bicycle owner, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed the allotment of nearly 25,000 flats constructed by CIDCO in Navi Mumbai under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana (Urban) (PMAYU-2.0) scheme, which were meant for the Lower Income Group (LIG) in 2024.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday sought to know from the Maharashtra Government if it could permit Surendra Gadling, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, to access the computer installed in the Taloja Central Prison to review the evidence against him.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday observed that when the Maharashtra Government is able to spend crores on schemes like 'Ladki Bahin', but malnutrition continues to cause deaths among children, pregnant women and others in tribal regions like Melghat, the State must explain its conduct.
The Bombay High Court is set to decide whether women above 50-years of age can be held to be 'medically fit' to bear a child and give birth with the help of Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART). A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri heard two petitions filed by women - a 55-year-old and a 53-year-old - both challenging the validity of the Section 21 (g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021.