Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 360Nominal Index Binod Sitaram Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Wu Jyun Lin vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 349Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 350Shashi Kiran Shetty vs Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 351Maheshkumar B Patel vs...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
Nominal Index
Binod Sitaram Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
Wu Jyun Lin vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
Shashi Kiran Shetty vs Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
Maheshkumar B Patel vs Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
Mumtaz Ahmad Shah vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
Narendra Subhash Pelmahale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
Kannamwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
Ananta Rajaram Walunj vs Grupo Antolin Pune (P) Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
Vignesh Ramesh Kamble va State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Atikurrahaman Lais Mohammad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Binod Sitaram Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
Mere allegations that an individual's arrest violated the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, Joginder Kumar vs State of UP and other decisions do not attract civil or criminal contempt against Police, the Bombay High Court held on Tuesday (July 28). A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait Sethna refused to initiate contempt action against Mumbai Police officers over the arrest of a man in a case registered under the Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Wu Jyun Lin vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 28) quashed and set aside an order directing a Taiwan national to leave India at the earliest, for allegedly breaching his 'employment' Visa by simultaneously pursuing two educational courses and re-entering India now on a 'student' Visa for pursuing his law course at city's prominent - Government Law College (GLC).
Case Title: Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside externment order passed against a leader of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who was ousted from the city for participating in various agitations protesting the decisions of the Central Government and also for sloganeering against the demolition of Babri Masjid.
Case Title: Shashi Kiran Shetty vs Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court recently restrained media houses and certain YouTube channels from posting anything defamatory or using words such as "unlucky, haunted, cursed or ill-omened" about the iconic 'Ashirwad' bungalow formerly owned by Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor passed the order while hearing the suit filed by businessman Shashi Kiran Shetty, who now owns the bungalow situated at Mumbai's posh Carter Road in Bandra.
Case Title: Maheshkumar B Patel vs Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
The Bombay High Court has held that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit an advocate from representing his or her own family members in legal proceedings. The Court observed that Rule 6 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette merely prohibits an advocate from appearing before a court, tribunal or authority where a relative is a member of that adjudicatory body, and cannot be construed as a bar against representing relatives as clients.
'Passing Eviction Orders Without Enforcement Machinery Renders Law Meaningless': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mumtaz Ahmad Shah vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Bombay High Court has held that merely passing eviction orders without providing an effective mechanism for their implementation renders the statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 meaningless. The Court further observed that the Competent Authority is under a statutory obligation to enforce eviction orders and cannot refuse to do so on the ground that it lacks the necessary machinery or that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) is unable to provide assistance.
Case Title: Narendra Subhash Pelmahale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court has held that where the office of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat was reserved for the Women category in the immediately preceding term, it must ordinarily revert to the Open (General) category in the succeeding term in compliance with the statutory principle of rotation under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The Court further observed that adherence to the rotation requirement does not dilute the legislative mandate of 50% reservation for women but merely regulates the manner in which such reservation is implemented across successive election terms.
Case Title: Kannamwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Bombay High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to formulate a comprehensive ward-wise cleanliness framework and consider linking the performance of Ward Officers in maintaining sanitation standards to their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The Court further observed that Mumbai's recurring plastic waste crisis, particularly garbage washed ashore during the monsoon, demands strict enforcement of municipal laws, technological monitoring, civic sensitisation and greater accountability of municipal officials.
Case Title: Ananta Rajaram Walunj vs Grupo Antolin Pune (P) Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
The Bombay High Court has held that making an incorrect claim regarding travel distance for transport allowance cannot, by itself, be equated with misappropriation of the employer's funds. The Court further observed that where the misconduct is accompanied by mitigating circumstances, and the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge proved, judicial interference with the penalty is warranted.
Case Title: Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
The Bombay High Court has upheld the removal from service of a Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable after personally viewing a viral video of him allegedly inappropriately touching a woman passenger at Kalyan railway station in 2018. Holding that the video clearly established his intention to outrage the woman's modesty, the Court observed that despite being entrusted with protecting passengers, he himself became "the perpetrator of a shameful act."
Case Title: Vignesh Ramesh Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
The Bombay High Court has held that the "subjective satisfaction" required for passing an externment order under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against a gang or body of persons is fundamentally different from the satisfaction required under Section 56 for externment of an individual. The Court observed that while Section 55 requires the authority to be satisfied about the activities of the gang or body of persons as a whole, Section 56 is concerned with the conduct and activities of the individual sought to be externed.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Atikurrahaman Lais Mohammad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court has held that a private motor garage is a "public place" within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as members of the public have a right of access to such premises for purposes like vehicle repairs and related services. The Court observed that a vehicle stationed in a garage for repairs continues to be in "use" under the Act and, therefore, an insurer remains liable for third-party claims arising from an accident during such repairs.
Case Title: Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
The Bombay High Court has held that Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention would not apply where the competent authority of the receiving country has categorically stated that the adoption is an "expatriate adoption" falling outside its regulated inter-country adoption process.
Other Developments:
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) permitted Union Minister and senior BJP leader Nitin Gadkari to sue X, Meta, Google and unknown others over the alleged defamatory, deepfake and AI generated posts linking him to the Ethanol-blended fuel controversy.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) refused to grant any interim relief to Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) corporator Ramesh Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting three doctors at a civic-run hospital in Dombivli, while strongly condemning the conduct of elected representatives who resort to violence against the very people they are elected to serve.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) refused to lift the stay it had imposed on 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).
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) pulled up the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for changing its stand on its own guidelines banning the immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols in natural water bodies by now claiming that they are merely 'advisory', despite having earlier defended their validity before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and various High Courts.
E20 Petrol Policy: Bombay High Court To Hear Nitin Gadkari's ₹11 Crore Defamation Suit On August 5
The Bombay High Court today adjourned till next Wednesday (August 5) the hearing in the Union Minister and senior BJP leader Nitin Gadkari's suit seeking orders to remove alleged defamatory and deepfake content linking him with the controversial Ethanol-blended fuel policy.
Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Raj Kundra's Plea Challenging Summons In ED's 'Bitcoins' Case
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 28) issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea filed by husband of Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty and businessman Raj Kundra, who has challenged a special court's order taking cognisance of a supplementary chargesheet naming him in a Bitcoin-linked money laundering case.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 29) observed that the proposed 'symbolic immersion' of giant Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols, followed by their recycling instead of immersion in natural water bodies, would not affect anyone's religious sentiments and would instead help protect the environment for future generations.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 30) adjourned sine die the plea filed by a same sex couple seeking 'exemption' under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax (IT) Act, which grants exemption from tax on 'gifts' between heterosexual couples. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla has kept the matter in abeyance until an identical matter pending before the Karnataka High Court is decided.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (July 31) came down heavily on the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) over what it described as "false" food safety inspection reports submitted in respect of canteens operating in the State Secretariat (Mantralaya) and Vidhan Bhavan.