Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196]Mangesh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs Vidyut Metallics Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 184GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Suhas Shankar Pagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd vs...
Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196]
Mangesh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182
Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs Vidyut Metallics Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 184
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Suhas Shankar Pagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185
Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
Krishnakumar Ashar vs Archie John Varel, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
Ejaj Urf Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
Rescue Foundation vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 191
DNS vs NNS, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 192
Valencio D'Souza vs The Director, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 193
Mast MPB vs Dr PMB, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 194
Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 195
Kartik Aryan vs Vinsm Globe Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Mangesh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182
The Bombay High Court has held that long incarceration alone does not entitle an accused to bail where the trial has already commenced and is in progress. The Court observed that precedents granting bail on the ground of delay are distinguishable where trial had not commenced, unlike the present case.
Case Title: Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs Vidyut Metallics Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
The Bombay High Court has held that a trade union cannot independently invoke Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP (Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, 1971) Act for the recovery of money without written authorisation from employees. The Court observed that the statutory scheme restricts the right of recovery to the employee or a person expressly authorised by him in writing.
Case Title: Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 184
The Bombay High Court has held that continued attachment of a bank account without complying with statutory requirements violates the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court observed that such coercive action, taken in breach of mandatory legal safeguards, results in serious civil consequences and cannot be sustained.
Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Suhas Shankar Pagare
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185
The Bombay High Court has held that mere absence of a Complaints Committee in the exact form contemplated under the Vishaka guidelines does not by itself vitiate a domestic inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct. The Court observed that the validity of such an inquiry depends on whether a fair procedure was followed and whether any real prejudice was caused to the employee.
Case Title: Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
The Bombay High Court has held that a landlord's inherited right to terminate tenancy for bona fide personal cultivation extinguishes upon the sale of the land. The Court observed that once the land is sold, the requirement of personal cultivation ceases to exist, defeating the basis of such a claim.
Case Title: Krishnakumar Ashar vs Archie John Varel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
The Bombay High Court has held that eviction proceedings cannot be continued against a tenant who has subsequently become a co-owner of the property. The Court observed that once a tenant acquires ownership rights in the premises, even to the extent of a share, his status changes and eviction proceedings cannot be pursued against him.
1993 Bombay Blasts Case: High Court Dismisses Abu Salem's Plea Seeking Premature Release
Case Title: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
The Bombay High Court today rejected the plea filed by underworld gangster and one of the prime convicts in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case, Abu Salem, who sought premature release arguing that he has already completed 25 years of imprisonment after counting the remissions and thus as per the treaty signed between the then Indian and the Portugal governments, he must now be released.
Case Title: Ejaj Urf Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
While upholding the conviction and life sentence imposed on a man by a Sessions Court in Thane for stabbing a friend to death just because he refused to give him a 'loan' of Rs 200, the Bombay High Court last month held that the said crime cannot be said to be a 'sudden quarrel' as the accused first pre-mediated the attack and then executed the same, killing the deceased.
Case Title: Rescue Foundation vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 191
A person trafficked to India can be repatriated to his or her original country based on a 'No Objection' granted by the respective trial court dealing with the said trafficking case, the Bombay High Court held on Wednesday (April 15), while ordering immediate repatriation of a Bangladeshi woman. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata said the court that has passed orders granting custody of the victim to the shelter homes, can pass repatriation orders in cases of adult victims, and that the said victims need not obtain any order from a Magistrate.
Case Title: DNS vs NNS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 192
The Bombay High Court has held that though a Family Court possesses sufficient powers to refer a spouse for medical examination to ascertain if s/he suffers from a mental disorder, it cannot 'casually' pass such orders without applying its mind. The High court quashed an order sending a woman for examination before a psychiatrist.
Case Title: Valencio D'Souza vs The Director, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 193
The Bombay High Court today (April 16) said that the legislation by brining in the Child Care Leave (CCL) policy has acknowledged the contribution of a woman to familial stability, her role in nurturing her children and thus, the Government must ensure that the policy is properly implemented to secure its objects. Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale said that by granting the CCL to women not only protects her own rights but also the rights of her children.
Case Title: Mast MPB vs Dr PMB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 194
Observing that the efforts of a mother single-handedly raising a child cannot be value in terms of money, the Bombay High Court recently held that even if the wife is earning but has the custody of the child, the husband will have to pay for the expenses of the child and cannot shirk off from his responsibility. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while enhancing the monthly maintenance to a child from Rs 15,000 to Rs 30,000, highlighted the efforts put in by a mother to raise a child alone, especially by working mothers.
Case Title: Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 195
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a doctor during the Covid-19 lockdown, who despite being infected by the virus failed to get himself admitted in a Covid Centre despite a clear order to him to come to the said facility for treatment. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke quashed the FIR lodged against Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar booked on a complaint filed by Dr. Vinayak Shankar Bhalerao, who was on an 108 Ambulance (emergency service). The Medical Superintendent of the Buldhana district has called Bhalerao to take help of the local police to bring in Zawar so that he can be admitted in the Covid Centre at Mehekar, Buldhana.
Case Title: Kartik Aryan vs Vinsm Globe Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
The Bombay High Court, while protecting the 'personality rights' of Bollywood actor Kartik Aryan, observed that the Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated content with regard to the actor is, prima facie, obscene and disparages his reputation and lowers his brand value. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, on April 15, passed an interim order protecting Aryan's personality rights and ordered various social media intermediaries to delete or pull down content which is unauthorised, objectionable and sexually explicit, as flagged by the actor in his plea.
Observing that a co-operative housing society is not a forum constituted for adjudicating title disputes, the Bombay High Court on Friday (April 18) ordered a suburban Malad based housing society to grant membership to a man, who was denied the same citing the existence of multiple legal heirs of his parents. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar upheld the order passed on November 13, 2014 by a Divisional Joint Registrar directing the Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited to grant membership to Radheshyam Dhanuka.
Other Development
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 15) ordered UK-based Doctor and YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil to file an undertaking spelling out that he will co-operate with the ongoing investigations against him for posting a 'defamatory' post on social media against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday orally told Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami not to use any "embellishments" while reporting on the ongoing investigations against industrialist Anil Ambani. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor made it clear that he was not going to pass any gag order against the channel but asked Goswami to tone down the tenor of his reporting against Ambani.
In a development in the ongoing defamation suit filed by Aditya Dhar, the director of "Dhurandhar" against filmmaker Santosh Kumar, for accusing the former of 'plagiarism' for his 'script', the Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 16) urged both the parties to try and 'settle' the dispute and not 'escalate' the same to the extent of filing defamation suit.
The Bombay High Court recently asked the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) to initiate appropriate proceedings against advocate Santosh Damodar Chande for putting in appearance for private persons without any authority and also for misleading the court. A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Nivedita Mehta ordered the BCM to take action against Chande for, what it termed, his 'misconduct' before the court.
Bombay High Court Seeks Centre's Response On PIL Seeking Inclusion Of SSPE In Rare Diseases Policy
The Bombay High Court on Friday ordered the Central Government to clarify its stance on a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting the sufferings of the families and also the patients diagnosed with a rare neurodegenerative disease called - Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE), which is caused by mutated measles virus.