Bombay High Court Quarterly Digest: January - March 2026 [Citations 01 - 155]
Nominal Index [Citations 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 1 to 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 155]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) 155]
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
Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
Anita Naik vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
Madhu Malti Enterprises vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
Abu Salem vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
Martin Soares vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
Anuradha Nayan Shah vs Jayantilal Vallabhdas Patni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
Chetan Samajik Pratishthan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra,2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar vs Tree Authority Department, Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
Elis Jane Quinlan vs Naveen Kumar Seth, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
Bipin Vasant Shinde vs Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
Prakash Krishna Gamre vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Minister for Cooperation & Textile Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
Aditya Shailendra Mane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
State Bank of India vs Anil D Ambani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
Shakuntala Tilakdhari Gupta vs Jawaharlal R Gupta, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare vs Teofilo J Monteiro, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti vs M/s Govindram Shobharam and Company, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Shobhit Kumar vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
Pradeep Prakash Baiker vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Aashu Engineering Works, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
Mumbai Fire Services Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Stavan Wilson Sathe vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Sunita Bapu Jagtap vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
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: 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.
Case Title: Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 49
Insurance companies when accepting porting of a policy must show highest level of professionalism and due diligence in vetting the customer's previous insurance claim history and then take an 'informed' decision, the Bombay High Court ruled recently. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that the insurance companies when dealing with an application by a customer to port his or her insurance policy from one company to the another, cannot blame the customer for failing to furnish the details of previous policy's claim history as it is the task of the previous insurance company to provide such information.
Case Title: Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 50
In an interesting ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday (February 2) held that a court taking two decades to decide a matter cannot be a ground for a party to challenge the court's order after a delay of nearly two years. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore, refused to condone a delay of 645 days as prayed by one Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala, who sought to review an order passed in a First Appeal on February 6, 2024.
Case Title: Anita Naik vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 3), while acquitting two women convicted for hitting their relative's child with an iron rod on his head leading to bleeding injury, held that mere solitary instance of an assault on a child cannot amount to the offence of 'child abuse' under the Goa Children's Act, 2003
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
Observing that despite clear orders the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and also the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) have failed to contain the rising levels of air pollution in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court recently constituted a High Power committee (HPC) comprising retired Justice Amjad Sayed and retired Justice Anuja Prabhudesai.
Case Title: Madhu Malti Enterprises vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
The Bombay High Court recently held that merely storing or preserving any item in a cold storage or more particularly a refrigerator would not amount to 'manufacturing process' and would thus not make a premise where such preserving and storing is taking place, a factory under the Factories Act.
Case Title: Abu Salem vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused permission to underworld gangster Abu Salem to travel to his native place in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, to mourn the death of his brother, Abu Hakim Ansari. A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak upheld the order of the Appellate Authority which had allowed Salem emergency parole only on the condition that he pays Rs 17.60 lakh towards High Security Police Escort charges. Salem had earlier refused to pay the amount.
Case Title: Martin Soares vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) recently upheld the conviction and refused to reduce the 10-year sentence awarded to an 83-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl in 2012. A bench of Justice Shreeram Shirsat said that the age of the Appellant could not be a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence in such offences as the Court can't "turn a Nelson's eye" to the age of the victim and the ordeal the victim has undergone.
Case Title: Anuradha Nayan Shah vs Jayantilal Vallabhdas Patni
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
The Bombay High Court has ordered a fresh 'revaluation' of a prime property at Mumbai's Vile Parle area after finding that the initial process of auction of the plot was 'rigged' with bidders coming a 'syndicate' and 'under-bidding' for the property. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar therefore while ordering fresh auction, ordered forfeiture of the Rs 10 lakh each Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by five bidders, till further orders.
Case Title: Chetan Samajik Pratishthan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
The Bombay High Court has held that access to adequate sanitation and toilet facilities constitutes a basic human right forming an integral part of the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, even in slum areas created by encroachment on municipal land. The Court observed that once large populations reside in slums, whether authorised or unauthorised, the Municipal Corporation cannot abdicate its statutory and constitutional obligations to provide and maintain basic civic amenities.
Case Title: Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
The Bombay High Court has held that the power to impound an instrument under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, is a serious statutory power having direct civil consequences on the property rights of a citizen and therefore can be exercised only by the “Registering Officer” before whom the document was registered. The Court observed that Section 33A does not permit any other revenue authority or superior officer to assume such power merely on the basis of administrative hierarchy.
Case Title: Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
The Bombay High Court has held that though a Magistrate is empowered under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commit a case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the inquiry or trial, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or solely on the basis of the severe nature of the punishment prescribed for the offence. The Court held that the Magistrate must form an opinion, supported by reasons, after discussing the evidence recorded before him, to conclude that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court.
Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to give wide publicity to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to ensure that no woman, particularly an unmarried woman, is forced to continue with an 'unwanted' pregnancy.
Case Title: Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
The Bombay High Court has held that mere telephonic contact with a co-accused, without any material indicating knowledge of or participation in the organised crime syndicate or the crime itself, is insufficient to prima facie connect an accused to the offence. The Court observed that at the stage of considering bail under the stringent provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), a bare allegation of having made calls, unaccompanied by evidence of conspiracy, knowledge, or facilitation, does not satisfy the statutory threshold.
Case Title: Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar vs Tree Authority Department, Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
Emphasising the need to 'strictly' follow the laws protecting trees and observing that 'trees are a poem which the earth writes upon the sky', the Bombay High Court recently held that even an officer, who fails to adhere to the due procedure for permitting felling or cutting of trees, is liable to be prosecuted under the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Tress Act, 1975.
Case Title: Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
Upholding a man's conviction for subjecting a minor girl to oral sex, the Bombay High Court recently reduced his life sentence to 12 years after noting that while in jail, the man 'successfully' passed exams on 'thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi' besides other programmes and also the fact that he had no other antecedents. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Sandesh Patil reduced the life sentence imposed on one Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, who was convicted by a special court under Section 6 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in December 2020.
Framing Of Issues Not Mandatory In Execution Of Foreign Decrees U/S 44A CPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Elis Jane Quinlan vs Naveen Kumar Seth
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
The Bombay High Court has held that while executing a decree passed by a foreign court in a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is not mandatory for the District Court to frame issues and direct the parties to lead evidence while examining whether the decree falls within any of the exceptions under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 CPC. The Court clarified that the inquiry contemplated under Section 44A(3) read with Section 13 is ordinarily summary in nature and not equivalent to a full-fledged trial as in a suit filed on a foreign judgment from a non-reciprocating territory.
Case Title: Bipin Vasant Shinde vs Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
The Bombay High Court has held that where promotions are governed by the principle of “seniority-cum-merit”, seniority must be reckoned in the feeder cadre and not based on the date of initial appointment to service. The Court observed that once an employee satisfies the minimum eligibility and merit requirements prescribed for the promotional post, seniority in the immediate lower cadre becomes determinative, and the employer cannot revert to the date of entry into service to alter the promotional hierarchy.
Case Title: Prakash Krishna Gamre vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court while quashing a Tribunal's order directing two sons to vacate the property of their father, recently held that every dispute or conflict between a senior citizen and his children will not fall within the ambit of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan quashed and set aside an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on February 2, 2024 directing the petitioner sons to vacate the residential units in suburban Malad, Mumbai after their father filed an application under section 4 and 5 of the Act.
Case Title: Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Minister for Cooperation & Textile Department
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
The safeguards under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act for division of an existing housing society into two or more cannot be bypassed, the Bombay High Court made it clear recently while quashing an order registering a separate society comprising of 10 shops of a building, which was carved out of an existing society. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar held that without statutorily bifurcating an existing society under the MCS Act, the Deputy Registrar cannot register a separate society.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that the service of summons through an electronic mode or even through a mobile phone would be legal as it is permitted under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke sitting at the Nagpur seat, quashed an order of a Special POCSO Court which had imposed costs on a constable in a child abuse case, for serving summons to prosecution witnesses through mobile phone, particularly through WhatsApp.
Case Title: Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday (Feb 6) held that section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS) cannot be invoked in disputes pertaining to 'salary scale' as it would result in expanding the provisions' scope and also make the School Tribunals, a general forum to hear all kinds of financial claims by employees against school managements.
Case Title: Aditya Shailendra Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
Assaulting a boy to dissuade him from continuing a love relationship which is objected by the girl's family is an 'individualistic' act and cannot be considered to be against 'public order' to detain a person under 'preventive detention' laws, held the Bombay High Court earlier this month. Sitting at the Kolhapur circuit seat, a division bench of Justice Ravindra Avachat and Justice Ajit Kadethankar quashed and set aside a preventive detention order passed against one Aditya Mane, a resident of Solapur.
Case Title: Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
The Bombay High Court has held that if no steps are commenced for the acquisition of land after the expiry of the stipulated period under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the land is deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. The Court observed that once a valid purchase notice is served and the Planning Authority fails to take steps for acquisition within twenty-four months, the lapse operates by statutory deeming fiction and the authority cannot defeat such consequence by raising technical objections.
Case Title: Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a man and his family held that "indiscriminate" invoking of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by "highly educated" women complainants, only trivialises the object of the section 498A. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Pravin Patil noted the "disturbing pattern" of educated women filing FIRs under section 498A against the husband and his family members only to settle scores.
Case Title: State Bank of India vs Anil D Ambani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
The Bombay High Court on Monday allowed the appeals preferred by three banks - Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and the IDBI Bank challenging the order of a single-judge, who had stayed fraud classification proceedings initiated by them against Anil Ambani, the founder and chairman of the Reliance Group, after prima facie finding 'serious defects' in the forensic audit relied upon by the said banks.
Case Title: Shakuntala Tilakdhari Gupta vs Jawaharlal R Gupta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
Hiring a person even for a short period would bring in an 'employee-employer' relationship under the Employees' Compensation Act, held the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore ordered a Labour Commissioner to compensate the family of one Tilakdhari Gupta, who was 'hired' by Jawahar Gupta for a period of two months, to drive his car from Thane to Rajasthan, where Jawahar's brother's funeral was scheduled. One their way to Rajasthan i.e. on March 29, 2009, the car met an accident and Tilakdhari died while Jawahar and other passengers in the car sustained injuries.
Case Title: Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Bombay High Court today quashed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against Kishore Dewani, an Advocate by profession and an alleged close aide of former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who is booked in a multi-crore money laundering case. Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe quashed the process and also the ED case against Dewani, who allegedly helped Deshmukh and his family to launder the money they allegedly earned illegally by collecting Rs 100 crore per month from various bar owners across Mumbai.
Case Title: The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare vs Teofilo J Monteiro
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
The Bombay High Court has held that a party cannot be denied examination of a witness merely on account of the witness being unwell, observing that such a direction is untenable in law and contrary to the principles of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that if a witness is competent and possesses relevant knowledge of the facts in issue, health concerns may justify adjournment, but cannot justify compelling a party to substitute the witness.
Case Title: VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
An 'intention' to insult the Indian National Flag by displaying it inverted - saffron down - is required for a person to be booked under the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, held the Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a 85-year-old man booked for insulting the national tricolour by displaying it inverted on the residential society's terrace while celebrating the Republic Day in 2017.
Case Title: Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti vs M/s Govindram Shobharam and Company
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
The Bombay High Court has held that demolition of tenanted premises during the pendency of an eviction suit does not extinguish the tenancy nor defeat the landlord's bona fide requirement under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRCA). The Court observed that where tenancy is created in respect of a building standing on land, both the land and the superstructure constitute the subject matter of demise, and destruction of the building alone does not render the eviction proceedings infructuous.
Case Title: Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
Emphasising on the importance of education in today's world, the Bombay High Court recently came to rescue of a 13-year-old girl student, who was removed from her school for non-payment of fees. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode held the school's action to be 'illegal and arbitrary' in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and therefore, ordered the Father Agnel School at Bhandara District to re-admit the class 7th girl student and also ordered the student's parents to clear the fees of Rs 23,900 within two weeks.
Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Passing orders directing Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) under section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 to ascertain a person's mental health based on the proof adduced by his or her opponent, would create a mechanism that may be weaponised by an adversarial party instead of protecting the 'rights' of the person, held the Bombay High Court recently.
Threat Of Suicide To Force Girl To Accompany Accused Constitutes Kidnapping: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shobhit Kumar vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
If a man threatens a girl to come along with him else he will commit suicide, the same would amount to 'enticing' her and a clear case of kidnapping is made out in such circumstances, held the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Shreeram Shirsat while upholding a man's conviction under section 363 (kidnapping) and section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, noted the testimony of the victim, who stated that the appellant had asked her to meet him at the Panaji Bus Stand on December 11, 2021 and had clearly threatened her that if she would not come, he will commit suicide.
Case Title: Pradeep Prakash Baiker vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, a person cannot be acquitted just because the medical officer does not give any opinion about sexual assault. Single-judge Justice Ravindra Joshi, while upholding a man's conviction under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, noted the argument of the convict that the medical officer who testified before the trial court did not give any opinion on sexual assault nor did he speak about any injury on the victim's person.
Case Title: Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay High Court has held that the six-year limitation prescribed under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, governs the entire revisional process, from initiation to passing of the final order, and not merely the issuance of notice. The Court observed that a fiscal statute must be construed strictly and that permitting initiation within six years but completion thereafter would introduce uncertainty in property transactions contrary to legislative intent.
Case Title: The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Aashu Engineering Works
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
The Bombay High Court recently invoked Benjamin Franklin and explained how laws in India continue to be violated only because of low deterrent effect and how important it is in a civilised society, to obey law out of principle rather than just fear of punishment. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain explained that penal provisions have a dual effect - one to penalise an offender or defaulter and the second one is to act as a deterrent.
Case Title: Mumbai Fire Services Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
The Bombay High Court has held that the Fire Brigade Department is an integral part of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and constitutes an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Court observed that there is unity of ownership, management, finance and functional integrity between the Corporation and its Fire Brigade Department, and that internal budgetary arrangements or departmental specialisation do not create a separate legal identity.
Case Title: Stavan Wilson Sathe vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Mere presence of a painting of the Holy Cross or a statue of Lord Jesus Christ in a person's house cannot be used as a ground to hold that the said person or his forefathers have converted into Christianity, held the Bombay High Court recently. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Mukulika Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh Deshpande quashed and set aside an order of a District Caste Scrutiny Committee which refused to grant the status of "Mang or Matang", a Scheduled Caste, to one Stawan Wilson Sathe.
Case Title: Sunita Bapu Jagtap vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
The Bombay High Court has held that supervisory staff deputed to manage traffic operations during the COVID-19 pandemic were exposed to the same risk as drivers and conductors, and are therefore entitled to compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the applicable Government Resolution and MSRTC circulars. The Court observed that the deceased did his job at the risk to his life in a time when the life of the general public came to a standstill, and the public services, including transport, were kept open for limited services.
Case Title: Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
At the time when more and more women are joining the workforce for becoming economically independent, the authorities by denying them maternity leave benefits cannot compromise their role as a care giver to the child, observed the Bombay High Court while ordering the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pay and extend the benefits to a Doctor, working in the civic-run KEM hospital, at the earliest. A division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Advait Sethna highlighted the fact that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was brought in for protecting the 'dignity' of motherhood.
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
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.
The Bombay High Court last week ordered the Maharashtra Government to deposit an amount of Rs 3.60 crores with the Court towards the non-payment of compensation to victims of human right violations, as ordered by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC). A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad ordered the State to deposit the amount with the Court and also ordered the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to appoint a Nodal Officer who can ensure that payments can be made to the victims.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it was not inclined to permit underworld gangster Abu Salem to visit his native place in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, to mourn the death of his brother Abu Hakim Ansari, by availing emergency parole for four days, since the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts convict has claimed that he cannot pay ₹17.60 lakh towards police escort party charges.
The Mumbai Police told the Bombay High Court that the criminal action against YouTuber and UK-based doctor Sangram Patil is not 'arbitrary' but it is only to 'safeguard' India's image and also the dignity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the international forum and also to protect national integrity.
Satirist Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The challenge is directed against provisions which enable the blocking of content posted on social media intermediaries. Earlier, the Karnataka High Court, in a challenge by 'X Corp', had held that the Sahyog portal is not an instrument for censorship, but ensures cooperation between social media intermediaries and government agencies.
The Bombay High Court has sought from its Administration a 'blue print' for recruitment of nearly 2800 judicial officers against the newly sanctioned posts by the Maharashtra Government for the State's lower judiciary. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Sarang Kotwal emphasised that the State as well as the High Court on the Administrative side will have to act 'expeditiously' to aim its goal of 'speedy justice' for the citizens.
In a development in the criminal proceedings initiated against YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil for allegedly posting 'obscene and defamatory' posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the UK-based doctor has 'categorically' told the Bombay High Court that he has not made any post against the PM and that the Mumbai Police is only trying to 'criminalise' political speech.
While observing that despite publicity of the popular slogan 'Clean Nagpur, Beautiful Nagpur', the slogans remains only on the papers and the reality of the city can be seen on its streets, which are littered, the Bombay High Court recently took suo motu cognisance of the issue of 'cleanliness' in the city. A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode took suo motu cognisance of news articles published in two leading Marathi newspapers, which highlighted the issue of garbage lying open at various streets of Nagpur.
While pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over its failure to act against illegal encroachers on public roads, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that if such an approach of the civic body continues, then in the coming decade, people will switch to bicycles and horses and even the civic chief would ride a horse to reach his office.
Wondering if the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials were playing 'Tom & Jerry' with encroachers in the city's plush Hiranandani area in Powai, the Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned if the civic body has become 'powerless' and has 'surrendered' the city to encroachers as it appeared only to be protecting 'sentiments and religious rights.'
“Return To India Or We Won't Hear Your Challenge Against FEO Act”: Bombay High Court To Vijay Mallya
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted a last chance to former liquor baron Vijay Mallya to spell out when he plans to return to India so that his plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that it had in a previous hearing it was made clear to Mallya to file an affidavit stating when he proposed to return to India and submit to the jurisdiction of the court. However, when the matter was called out on Thursday morning, it was informed that such an affidavit was not filed by Mallya yet.
The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and also the Maharashtra Government to file their affidavits in response to a plea filed by former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who has sought a temporary stay on the framing of charges in the money laundering case lodged against him. Deshmukh, who petitioned a single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin Bhobe has urged the court to issue a directive to a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to first consider dealing with the case lodged against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on allegations of corruption, which is the 'predicate offence.'
Bollywood actor Shatrughan Sinha has moved the Bombay High Court seeking to protect his 'personality rights' citing the unauthorised use of his name, image, and especially his iconic dialogue "Khamosh." Sinha's suit was heard by single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh on Monday and was reserved for ad-interim orders.
A writ petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Government to scrap the 5% reservation in education to Muslim community. The petition filed by advocate Ejaz Naqvi challenges the February 17 Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra Government which withdraws a 2014 Ordinance. This ordinance had provided 5% reservation to 50 castes of the Muslim community, for education.
The Bombay High Court on Friday directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to make a statement by next week spelling out if it will consider purely on 'humanitarian' grounds, to permit the autorickshaw, taxi, Ola-Uber drivers and even passengers to offer Namaz at a temporary shed in the vicinity of the Domestic Terminal of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), at least for the ongoing holy month of Ramadan.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking quashing of a criminal defamation complaint over his alleged remarks describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”. Justice Nitin Borkar, after hearing detailed submissions from all sides, directed that the matter be reserved for judgment and ordered that the interim relief earlier granted to Gandhi would continue.
The Maharashtra Government on Thursday informed the Bombay High Court that it cannot permit Autorickshaw-Taxi and Ola-Uber cab drivers to offer Namaz at a temporary shed in the vicinity of the Domestic Terminal of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), even for the ongoing holy month of Ramadan, due to 'security' reasons. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla however, asked the State as well as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to identify a site in the vicinity so that the drivers and also the passengers, can offer Namaz at least for the ongoing month of Ramadan.
An advocate has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking structural safety assessment of all the construction sites of various lines of Mumbai Metro after the tragic accident took place in the city wherein one man lost his life and three were seriously injured after a portion of the slab of an under-construction of Metro Line 4B fell on an autorickshaw and a private car.
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.