Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232 - 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250Nominal IndexJhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 233Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232 - 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
Nominal Index
Jhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Rahul Sudhindra Soni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre vs Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
Rubabuddin Shaikh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
Yuvraj Santrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
Rama Gunda Malkapure vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
Vaijenath Haridas Ambad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
Rohit Bandu Nikalje vs The Regional Officer, UIDAI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 246
Santosh Hiraman Lashkare vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
D S Textiles vs IIFL Finance Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
Maniar Ramesh Kumar vs CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Jhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court has held that permissions obtained from a Municipal Corporation by misrepresentation or submission of incorrect material are void and cannot be sustained in law. The Court observed that fraud vitiates all actions, and a party cannot take advantage of permissions secured by misleading the authority. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation revoking development permission granted to the petitioners for the construction of a multi-storey building under Section 51 of the MRTP Act. The Corporation had also directed the removal of the construction.
Case Title: Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court has held that an industrial dispute is deemed to remain “pending” under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act until 30 days after publication of the award, even if the dispute is factually settled. The Court clarified that during this statutory period, compliance with Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory for dismissal of a workman.
Case Title: Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
The Bombay High Court has held that the State cannot retain stamp duty paid under a wrong head merely on the ground that the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court observed that procedural timelines cannot defeat a substantive right, particularly where the State would otherwise unjustly enrich itself.
Case Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which transfers the power to issue adoption orders from courts to District Magistrates. The Court held that the change in forum does not violate constitutional principles and is aimed at expediting the adoption process.
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust against Sashidhar Jagdishan over alleged bribery. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Nitin Borkar noted that the instant FIR was triggered out of "personal vendetta." It also noted that the HDFC Bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the Trust and thus, in a counterblast, the instant FIR was lodged against the bank's CEO.
Case Title: Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
The Bombay High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Competent Authority cannot look into documents other than the Leave and License Agreement in a summary inquiry for eviction of a licensee. The Court observed that the inquiry under Sections 24 and 43 of the Act is restricted to examining whether the license period has expired, and that contractual arrangements contained in separate documents cannot be enforced before the Competent Authority.
Case Title: Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Rahul Sudhindra Soni
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
The Bombay High Court has held that an employee who resigns in breach of a service bond cannot insist that the employer must issue a relieving letter or experience certificate. The Court observed that when resignation is tendered contrary to contractual obligations under a valid service bond, the employer is justified in not accepting the resignation and consequently cannot be compelled to issue relieving or service certificates.
Case Title: Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre vs Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court while dismissing a son's appeal challenging the order of a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, directing him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to his aged mother and also quashing the gift deed, by which the mother relinquished her rights in the ancestral property, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 for 'dragging' the senior citizen into a 'multi-layered' and 'protracted' litigation.
Case Title: Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) denied bail to a man booked in the murder case of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddiqui, who was shot to death in broad daylight on October 12, 2024 at Mumbai's plush Bandra area. At least three assailants had opened fire against Siddiqui, while he was about to enter his car after meeting his son Zeeshan in Bandra East. A total of six bullets were fired at him, some of which hit him in abdomen and chest, due to which, he died. It is alleged that the Lawrence Bishnoi gang has conspired to kill Siddiqui.
Case Title: Rubabuddin Shaikh vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
The Bombay High Court while upholding the acquittal of the 22 policemen from Gujarat and Rajasthan in the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulasiram Prajapati, held that the prosecution's story of a 'conspiracy' to kill the trio after abducting them was not established and that the case rested solely on 'circumstantial' evidence, which too was not proved.
Case Title: Yuvraj Santrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
The Bombay High Court recently observed that when the State is extending financial assistance under welfare schemes such as the Ladki Bahin Yojana, it cannot deny or delay financial aid to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection without reasonable classification or justification.
Case Title: Rama Gunda Malkapure vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution cannot be defeated on the basis of erroneous revenue entries made during the implementation of a consolidation scheme. The Court observed that where landholders were not issued notice as required under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, delay in seeking correction of revenue entries cannot be used to deny restoration of their holdings.
Case Title: Vaijenath Haridas Ambad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
The Bombay High Court has held that teachers seeking promotion must possess TET/CTET qualification on the date of initiation of the promotion process and that subsequent clearance of the examination cannot be applied retrospectively to claim inclusion in an ongoing promotion process. The Court observed that merely appearing for the TET/CTET examination during the pendency of the promotion process does not create any vested right to seek consideration for promotion.
Case Title: Rohit Bandu Nikalje vs The Regional Officer, UIDAI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
The Bombay High Court while taking note of the increasing cases where citizens are compelled to approach courts on account of biometric mismatch, deactivation or suspension of Aadhar Cards, issued detailed guidelines ordering the authorities to adopt a 'citizen-centric' approach in dealing with such cases and also to ensure the grievances are redressed within four weeks. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar observed that in several such cases, genuine residents are made to run from one office to the another, without any resolution, which results in unnecessary hardships.
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 246
Invoking the famous couplet - Zara Hatke Zara Bachke, Ye Hai Bombai Meri Jaan! the Bombay High Court on Friday ordered constitution of a Committee to look into the 'abysmal' progress of town planning in the city of Mumbai and the failure of proper implementation of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act of 1971. A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna in a detailed judgment, pointed out various flaws in the implementation of the Slums Act and also the failures of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) along wit the Maharashtra Government and its bodies, in ensuring a 'slum-free' Mumbai even after 55 years of enacting the then ad-hoc Slums Act.
Case Title: Santosh Hiraman Lashkare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
In what could impact thousands of public servants in various departments across Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has upheld the powers of the State Government to order 're-assessment' and 'verification' of the medical certificates and the Unique Disability ID (UDID) cards. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri has held that obtaining a government job on the basis of a bogus UDID card, would amount to an 'immoral act' and such an employee can be removed from service on the ground of 'moral turpitude.'
Case Title: D S Textiles vs IIFL Finance Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
The Bombay High Court recently flagged the disturbing trend in arbitration matters, wherein non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) resort to appointing 'unilateral' arbitrators through 'institution' or 'algorithm-based' selection, which the court held to be illegal and against the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan in an order passed on April 30, noted that the IIFL had unilaterally appointed an arbitrator, a decision which was challenged before the court. The judge said that the NBFCs think that appointing an arbitrator unilaterally through an institution etc, would 'clean' the illegality.
Case Title: Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
The Bombay High Court has held that the Mediation Act, 2023, does not empower courts to compel parties to undergo mediation without their mutual consent. The Court clarified that mediation under the statutory framework is consensual in nature and cannot be imposed unilaterally.
Case Title: Maniar Ramesh Kumar vs CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the acquittal of 22 policemen from the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulasiram Prajapati, also dismissed an interim application which sought to challenge the discharge of Union Home Minister and BJP leader Amit Shah from the said case.
Other Developments
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a defamation suit filed by Aditya Dhar, director of the recently released Bollywood film Dhurandhar, against Filmmaker Santosh Kumar, who in a Press Conference had claimed that the script of the film in question was 'copied' from his original work titled as 'D Saheb.' Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor, disposed of the suit on April 30, after Kumar tendered an apology for whatever he stated in the Press Conference against Dhar.
Observing that 'life comes once' and 'money will come and go', the Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered immediate release of 50 seafarers - all Indian nationals, who were stranded on three vessels near the Mumbai Coast since February 9, surviving on limited food stocks and 300 ml water per day. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar ordered immediate release of the 50 seafarers who were stranded on MT Asphalt Star, MT Stellar Ruby and MT Al Jafzia, which were arrested by the Yellow Gate Police Station in Mumbai, for alleged illegal fuel oil and bitumen transfers.
Questioning the "loud" celebrations of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar's birth anniversary in Nagpur, the Bombay High Court recently said that the great philosopher would have preferred a celebration more focused on intellectual growth, social reforms, and empowerment of the downtrodden than using loud music. A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that on the eve of celebrations of Dr Ambedkar's brith anniversary at 'Samvidhan Square'— there was loud noise; slogans; and bursting of firecrackers, which the Amicus Curiae said violates the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the Rights of General Public guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (May 5) asked Maharashtra Government to modify the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against UK-based Doctor & YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil–booked for making 'objectionable' posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi –so that he can fly back to his home country by Monday. Patil is booked in a FIR for allegedly posting defamatory posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Tuesday told the Bombay High Court that the Bangladeshi nationals, who have entered India illegally, have no business here and cannot be permitted to indulge into hawking activites and would be removed soon. The BMC through senior advocate Anil Singh along with Advocate Chaitanya Chavan told a division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata that the civic body would require some time but it will surely remove the illegal Bangladeshi hawkers, if any.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted five weeks time to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to issue 'Quick Response' (QR) Code generated Identity Cards (ID) to the 99,435 'surveyed' hawkers, so that any person beyond this list, especially Bangladeshi nationals, if found hawking, can be evicted. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata also directed the BMC to come up with some mechanism wherein people or the fellow hawkers can flag persons, especially Bangladeshi nationals, if found hawking in their local areas.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) dismissed the appeals filed by the family members of the victims in the alleged "fake" encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulsiram Prajapati. The family had challenged the acquittal of the 22 Policemen from Gujarat, who were named in the case. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad pronounced the order in open court.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 8) orally remarked that it hopes that the dispute between industrialist Anil Ambani and Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami over allegedly objectionable reporting on the former can be settled amicably. The court further asked the channel to consider the allegedly objectionable content flagged by Ambani.