Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 211]Tridoss Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197M/s Ascent Ventures vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 198Bina Ramnik Chawda vs Cherag Balsara, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 199Lalan Kishore Singh vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 200Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar vs Balaji Pandharinath Thorat, 2026...
Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 211]
Tridoss Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197
M/s Ascent Ventures vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
Bina Ramnik Chawda vs Cherag Balsara, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
Lalan Kishore Singh vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar vs Balaji Pandharinath Thorat, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
Shrinivas Shinde vs Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
Gajanan Kashiram Shekokar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
Girish Rameshchandra Malani vs Reserve Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
Adv. Yogeshwar Madhukarrao Kawade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
Rajendra Chaudhary s/o Vikram Singh Chaudhary @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav @ Laxman Das Maharaj vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
Rajendra Chaudhary s/o Vikram Singh Chaudhary @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav @ Laxman Das Maharaj vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 207
Santosh Motiram Chavan vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sandeep Sunder Kolhe, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 209
Santsaran Gursaran Advani vs Nina Bhalla, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
Kashinath Ramji Shinde vs Pradip, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 211
Final Orders / Judgments:
Case Title: Tridoss Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197
The Bombay High Court has held that the authority cannot equate 'sustained release' with 'controlled release' formulations to fix ceiling prices in the absence of a specific notification covering such formulations. The Court observed that a demand raised after more than a decade, without explanation and without affording a proper opportunity, violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
Case Title: M/s Ascent Ventures vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 294 CrPC is mandatory and the Trial Court cannot reject an application seeking to call upon the opposite party to admit or deny documents merely on the ground of relevancy. The Court observed that once documents are brought on record in accordance with law, the Court is bound to follow the statutory procedure of calling upon the other party to admit or deny their genuineness.
Case Title: Bina Ramnik Chawda vs Cherag Balsara
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
The Bombay High Court has held that filing a fresh service affidavit based on documents earlier disapproved by the Court cannot be accepted as proof of service of summons. The Court observed that such conduct, despite repeated directions, warrants imposition of costs. Single-judge Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an interim application filed by the defendants seeking permission to treat their affidavit in reply as a written statement and to file an additional written statement. The plaintiff opposed the application, contending that the writ of summons had been duly served in 2019 and therefore the defendants' right to defend stood forfeited. The defendants, however, consistently maintained that no summons had been served upon them.
Case Title: Lalan Kishore Singh vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
The Bombay High Court today dismissed a PIL that raised questions over the Z Plus security provided to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Chief Mohan Bhagwat and sought recovery of tax payers' money claiming that RSS is an "unregistered" organisation. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the PIL filed by one Lalan Kishore Singh, who claimed to be an activist.
Service Records Are Personal Information, Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar vs Balaji Pandharinath Thorat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
The Bombay High Court has held that a service record constitutes personal information exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act. The Court observed that such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the authority records satisfaction that a larger public interest warrants such disclosure.
Case Title: Shrinivas Shinde vs Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa on Monday (April 20) held that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) provides for punishment against the complainant woman or anyone who lodged the complaint on her behalf— if the complaint is 'false and malicious'.
Case title: Gajanan Kashiram Shekokar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, has said that merely sprinkling white mustard infront of someone's house door would not constitute an offence under Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act 2013, unless an ill motive or intention is attributed to it.
Case Title: Girish Rameshchandra Malani vs Reserve Bank of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 22) directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to exchange the 'demonetised' Rs 500 notes of a man totalling to Rs 2 lakh and provide him with the equivalent amount within eight weeks. A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that the amount owned by one Girish Malani was seized by the local police while he was travelling towards the famous Renuka Devi Temple. The amount comprised of Rs 500 notes. The police suspected that the amount could be misused by Malani as the local body elections, were then, underway. Therefore, the amount was seized.
Case Title: Adv. Yogeshwar Madhukarrao Kawade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 21) reminded the Maharashtra Police of its motto—'Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya' (to protect the good and punish the evil)—while awarding ₹50,000 in compensation to an advocate and a retired military man who were humiliated by being handcuffed. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta observed that the police indulging into such acts of harassing or torturing citizens, depletes the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system.
Bombay High Court Discharges Four Accused In 2006 Malegaon Blast Case
Case Title: Rajendra Chaudhary s/o Vikram Singh Chaudhary @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav @ Laxman Das Maharaj vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
In a major relief to four accused in the 2006 Malegaon Bomb Blast case, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed and set aside the order by which a special court had framed charges against them. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Shyam Chandak pronounced the order in the appeals filed by Rajendra Chaudhary, Lokesh Sharma, Dhan Singh and Manohar Ram Singh Narwaria.
Case Title: Rajendra Chaudhary s/o Vikram Singh Chaudhary @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav @ Laxman Das Maharaj vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 207
In its order discharging four men from the 2006 Malegaon blast case, the Bombay High Court has pulled up the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for not going by the investigations conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and for coming up with an 'altogether new story' with respect to the blasts.
Case Title: Santosh Motiram Chavan vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 23) held that though a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is not permissible under the Hindu religion, however, a public servant committing such a 'blunder' cannot be subjected to a 'shocking' punishment of dismissal from service.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sandeep Sunder Kolhe
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 209
Noting the protracted litigation in appeals arising out of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and also the Railways Claim Tribunal (RCT), which takes decades for deciding, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Union Government to set up specialised Appellate Tribunals to deal with such appeals as this would result in reducing the burden on the HC to decide such appeals.
Case Title: Santsaran Gursaran Advani vs Nina Bhalla
Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act has not been declared unconstitutional and continues to govern succession to the property of a female Hindu. The Court observed that in the absence of any declaration by a Division Bench or the Supreme Court, the provision remains applicable and must be followed.
Case Title: Kashinath Ramji Shinde vs Pradip
Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 211
The Bombay High Court has held that deletion of a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is not equivalent to withdrawal of a suit against that defendant. The Court observed that a purchaser pendente lite continues to be bound by the decree and cannot avoid its consequences merely because his name was deleted from the suit.
Other Developments:
The Bombay High Court last week ordered the Central Government to decide if it would confer the Padma Vibhushan Award on former wrestler Khashaba Dadasaheb Jadhav, posthumously, by May 4. Jadhav is the first Indian athlete to win a medal in Olympics in individual category. He had bagged a bronze medal in freestyle wrestling at the 1952 Helsinki Summer Olympics. A division bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar and Justice Pravin Patil was recently petitioned by Jadhav's son - Ranjeet Jadhav, who has founded an organisation - Kusteeveer Khashaba Jadhav Foundation.
The hearing on the issue of illegal hawkers before the Bombay High Court took an interesting turn on Tuesday (April 21) after the Court sent two advocates to immediately inspect the to inspect the area from CST railway station upto the HC. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata took note of the grievance made before it by BJP Corporator Harsh Patel from suburban Goregaon, who highlighted the failure of the civic body in taking action against illegal hawkers, resulting in them continuing with their menace at all public places even the railway platforms.
Bombay High Court Issues Notice To ED On Anil Deshmukh's Plea Seeking Stay On PMLA Trial
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who has sought a temporary stay on the framing of charges in the money laundering case lodged against him. Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which was represented by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh.
A widow has approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to issue a death certificate of her husband, who committed suicide by jumping off from the famous 'Atal Setu' bridge which connects South Bombay to Navi Mumbai, after three municipal corporations have denied her relief citing 'lack of jurisdiction.'