Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231] Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212Kumar Chintaman Ketkar vs Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 213Ashish Prakash Walke vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 214M/s Pioneer Constructions vs Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231]
Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212
Kumar Chintaman Ketkar vs Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 213
Ashish Prakash Walke vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
M/s Pioneer Constructions vs Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 215
Sanjay Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
Mahadeo vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
M/s GH Khandelwal vs Amravati Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
Sharad Kalaskar vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
Helcino A Fernandes vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
Fahim Arshad Mohammed Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
Shekhar Suman vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
Dr. Dhanashri Rajesh Deshmukh vs Saroj Kumar Behera, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
Dhanraj R. Mahale vs Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
PRG vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
Blinston Savio Fernandes vs Leandra Marie Fernandes, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
Anil Baburao Baile vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
Surendra Gadling vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212
The Bombay High Court has held that a Power of Attorney holder does not have the locus to file a complaint on behalf of the victim for offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that in such cases, the complaint is required to be made by the affected person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, and not by an agent without specific authorisation.
Case Title: Kumar Chintaman Ketkar vs Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 213
The Bombay High Court has held that the Charity Commissioner is empowered to appoint an interim committee to manage the affairs of a public trust where circumstances warrant such intervention. The Court observed that such directions, when issued after considering relevant material and affording a hearing, do not call for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Ashish Prakash Walke vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
The Bombay High Court has held that an accused can be granted default bail even if the application is filed under regular bail provisions, provided the necessary grounds are pleaded. The Court observed that in matters concerning personal liberty, technicalities regarding the form of application cannot defeat the right to seek bail.
Case Title: M/s Pioneer Constructions vs Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 215
The Bombay High Court recently while refusing interim relief to a developer, who did not 'move even a brick' in a redevelopment project for nearly 13 years, held that when the rights of a developer to earn profit by selling flats in a redevelopment project are pitted against the rights of the society members to live in safer and better homes, the rights of the latter must prevail.
Case Title: Sanjay Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
The Bombay High Court on Monday (April 27) refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Managing Director, CEO and three Directors of the SBL Energy Limited, who apprehend arrest in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against them by the Nagpur Police after a massive explosion took place in the explosives manufacturing factory, killing 17 workers.
Case Title: Mahadeo vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
The Bombay High Court has held that restricting compensation for crop and tree damage only to certain specified wild animals, while excluding others such as birds, is violative of Article 14. The Court observed that such classification has no reasonable nexus with the object of compensating farmers for loss caused by wild animals.
Case Title: M/s GH Khandelwal vs Amravati Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
The Bombay High Court has held that a mere familial relationship between bidders does not, by itself, establish cartelisation or collusion in a tender process. The Court observed that allegations of cartelisation must be supported by cogent material showing bid manipulation or lack of independent decision-making.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Convict In Narendra Dabholkar Murder Case
Case Title: Sharad Kalaskar vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 29) granted bail to Sharad Salaskar, one of the convicts in the murder of anti-superstition crusader Narendra Dabholkar. Kalaskar was convicted by a special court in 2024 and had filed an appeal in the High Court. He sought bail till the appeal is finally heard and decided. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale while ordering his release, directed him to furnish ₹50,000 bail bond.
Case Title: Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition filed by Fahim Ansari, the lone accused in the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attack Case who was acquitted from the trial, seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Police to issue him the mandatory Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) so that he can earn a livelihood by plying an autorickshaw.
Case Title: Helcino A Fernandes vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 29) refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against four persons booked under the charges of 'child abuse' punishable under the Goa Children's Act, 2003, for allegedly abusing, threatening and punching a minor. Single-judge Justice Ashish Chavan noted that the threatening and also the verbal abuse did not merely affect the victim physically, but also had a huge psychological impact.
Case Title: Fahim Arshad Mohammed Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
The Bombay High Court while upholding the decision of the Maharashtra Government denying Police ClearanceCertificate (PCC) to the lone acquitted accused Fahim Ansari, in 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks case, held that the refusal does not violate his 'right to earn a livelihood' and instead is a 'reasonable restriction.' A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale noted that the Government had refused the PCC after considering the fact that Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari was accused of providing 'logistics support' in the 26/11 attack and also attacked the CRPF officials with a grenade and also that he was a member of the banned outfit - Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Case Title: Shekhar Suman vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
Mere use of food items in a comic act cannot amount to insult to religion, the Bombay High Court said on Wednesday (April 29) while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in 2010 against comedian Bharati Singh and actor Shekhar Suman, for uttering the words 'Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!' Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar made it clear that criminal law should not be 'casually' invoked against artists and quashed the FIR lodged under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises 'deliberate and malicious act for outraging religious sentiments.'
Case Title: Dr. Dhanashri Rajesh Deshmukh vs Saroj Kumar Behera 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
The Bombay High Court has held that an unsigned employment contract can still be considered for determining notional income, provided it is supported by credible evidence on record. The Court observed that such documents cannot be discarded merely on the ground of absence of signature when the surrounding circumstances establish their genuineness.
Case Title: Dhanraj R. Mahale vs Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
The Bombay High Court has held that mere completion of the probation period under the Model Standing Orders does not automatically result in deemed confirmation of an employee. The Court clarified that confirmation requires a specific order in writing, and in its absence, no right to permanency accrues.
Case Title: PRG vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 29) granted interim bail to a rape accused, even while his anticipatory bail application was pending before a lower court, on the ground that his marriage is scheduled to take place on May 4. Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe granted interim bail after noting that all arrangements for the marriage have been made by the applicant and his family members.
Case Title: Blinston Savio Fernandes vs Leandra Marie Fernandes
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
Observing that 'State of Goa' is a part of India and is government by the Constitution of our country, the Bombay High Court made it clear that the Registrars of Marriage in the State are bound by orders passed by any civil court across India and that s/he cannot term such orders to be passed by 'foreign courts' by invoking provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code (PCC) of 1867 and the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure (PCCP) of 1939.
Case Title: Anil Baburao Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 29) dismissed a petition seeking to review the judgment, by which the court upheld the validity of various provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In July 2025, the High Court had held that the Act can be construed to be 'deterrent' to the commission of unlawful activities, but by no stretch of imagination can it be equated with 'preventive detention.'
Case Title: Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
The Bombay High Court has directed an investigation into irregularities and illegal allotments of land in the Temghar Dam Project, and ordered that action be taken against officials responsible for such lapses. The Court observed that allotment of alternate land to project-affected persons was made without proper verification of entitlement and supporting records.
Case Title: Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Bombay High Court has held that permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation for repairs or alterations do not establish the legality of a structure, nor do they prove its existence prior to the relevant cut-off date. The Court observed that such permissions, in the absence of independent proof, cannot be relied upon to legitimise unauthorised constructions.
Bhima-Koregaon Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Surendra Gadling After 8 Years In Jail
Case Title: Surendra Gadling vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling, who is in prison from June 6, 2018 in Bhima-Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, considering his long incarceration. He is the last among the 16 persons named in the case to be in prison. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata dictated order in the open court granting bail to Gadling on usual conditions, as imposed by the special court on other co-accused like Hany Babu.
Other Developments:
The Bombay High Court recently adjourned a long-pending defamation suit to the year 2046, observing that the dispute reflects an “ego fight” between the parties that unnecessarily burdens the judicial system. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain, while passing the order on April 28, 2026, noted that the matter could have been resolved earlier if the defendant had tendered an unconditional apology. However, the plaintiff, who is close to 90 years of age, continues to insist on pursuing the litigation.
Observing that the life of a common man is made 'miserable' because of the continued 'menace' of the illegal hawkers across the city, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday criticised the Maharashtra Government for failing to tackle the issue of illegal hawkers even after the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) took action against them.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 29) recalled its order adjourning a defamation suit to the year 2046 citing that the parties reflected "ego fight", and adjourned the matter for further consideration on July 15, 2026. Notably, single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain, while passing the order on April 28, noted that the defamation suit could have been resolved earlier if the defendant had tendered an unconditional apology. However, the plaintiff, who is close to 90 years of age, continued to insist on pursuing the litigation.
Industrialist Anil Ambani on Wednesday (April 29) informed the Bombay High Court that despite the court asking Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami to exercise restraint, there was again some objectionable telecast on the channel against him. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor is seized with the defamation suit filed by Ambani against Goswami and his channel.
The Maharashtra Government on Wednesday told the Bombay High Court that the July 2014 Ordinance that provided a 5 per cent reservation for Muslims in the State had lapsed by December 2014 and thus, the Government Resolution (GR) issued in February this year, has not per se "scrapped" any quota for the community.
Filmmaker Santosh Kumar on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that he would refrain from making any defamatory statements against director Aditya Dhar, amid an ongoing dispute over alleged copying of 'Dhurandhar' film script. The statement was made before single-judge Justice Arif Doctor by Kumar's counsel, who submitted that his client would pursue appropriate legal remedies against Dhar but would not make any further defamatory remarks in the media going forward.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande Sworn-In As Permanent Judge Of Bombay High Court
Justice Manjusha Deshpande was sworn-in as a permanent judge of the Bombay High Court on Monday (May 4). The oath was administered by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar. On April 14, Supreme Court collegium had recommended permanent appointment for Justice Deshpande, who was an additional judge of the high court. On April 24, Central Government notified her permanent appointment.