Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384Nominal Index:Project Revolt LLP vs Bureau of Indian Standards, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371Rohit Abhijit Oze vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 372Prashant Vasantrao Salunkhe vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 373Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 374State of Maharashtra vs Anil Shridhar...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
Nominal Index:
Project Revolt LLP vs Bureau of Indian Standards, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371
Rohit Abhijit Oze vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 372
Prashant Vasantrao Salunkhe vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 373
Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 374
State of Maharashtra vs Anil Shridhar Gaikwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 375
Om Education Society vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 376
Rohan P. Pai Dhungat vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 377
Maijabeen Abdul Quaiyum Khan vs M/s. Ajit Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 378
Ashok Gangadhar Puranik vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 379
Shivaji Maruti Kamble vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 380
Villayati Ram Mittal vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
Shashikant Anant Kale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
Rahul Ganesh Mehta vs Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 383
Jhang Union International LLC FZ vs LPG Amir Gas, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
Final Orders/Judgments:
Case Title: Project Revolt LLP vs Bureau of Indian Standards
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371
The Bombay High Court has held that helmets which do not conform to the Indian Standards prescribed under the Quality Control Order, 2020 cannot be permitted to be sold or used after June 1, 2021, even if they were imported before the said date. The Court, however, permitted that the seized helmets be returned to the petitioner subject to the condition that they shall be destructed/disposed of in such a manner which is permitted in law.
Case Title: Rohit Abhijit Oze vs State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition (Stamp) 13733 of 2026]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 372
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 25-year-old student for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that subjecting him to a criminal trial when his breath alcohol reading was only 0.1 mg above the statutory limit would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Case Title: Prashant Vasantrao Salunkhe vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 373
The Bombay High Court recently constituted a committee of five advocates to visit the 12th Century built historic Kopeshwar Temple in Khidrapur, Kolhapur and conduct an independent fact-finding exercise to ascertain the present status of the temple's infrastructure so that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could be asked to take proper steps for the resurrection of the said temple.
Case Title: Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 374
The Bombay High Court has clarified that the Supreme Court judgment providing "one-time protection" to law students, who were prevented from appearing in their exams during the academic year of 2025-2026, will apply to students missing any of the semester-end exams and not be confined only to "final exams."
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Anil Shridhar Gaikwad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 375
The Bombay High Court recently held that a minor rape victim's testimony cannot be discarded just because she could not properly describe the sexual act to which she was subjected to. The High Court therefore, reversed a trial court's judgment and convicted a man for raping a minor girl in a 2012 case.
Case Title: Om Education Society vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 376
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Government to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing reimbursement mechanism under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court suggested examination of the issues of prescription of definite timelines at every stage of processing reimbursement proposals and the adequacy of a monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with such timelines.
Case Title: Rohan P. Pai Dhungat vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 377
A condition mandating the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to opine with 'absolute certainty' on a prisoner's potential to not re-offend if releases from jail would result in a situation wherein a convicted person would never see freedom and would rather die within the prison walls, held the Bombay High Court while quashing Goa Government's order refusing to allow premature release of a law student, who was convicted in a kidnapping and murder case dating back to 2006.
Case Title: Maijabeen Abdul Quaiyum Khan vs M/s. Ajit Developer Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 378
The Bombay High Court has held that an objection to the execution of a decree on the ground that it is a nullity by reason of abatement of the suit has to be adjudicated by the executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC and cannot be raised by way of a separate suit. The Court observed that Section 47 and Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 vest the powers in executing court to decide the question of undivided right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs in the subject property.
Case Title: Ashok Gangadhar Puranik vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 379
The Bombay High Court has expressed its displeasure at the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) for attempting to avoid payment of compensation to the petitioners. The Court treated the assurance of payment given by the CIDCO as an undertaking given to the Court and directed the State authorities to disburse the amount to the petitioners.
Case Title: Shivaji Maruti Kamble vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 380
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against three members of a housing society, who had forged a false RT-PCR Covid19 'negative' report for themselves, to ease and evade security protocols of their society. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav while quashing the FIR against Shivaji Kamble, Prathamesh Parab and Vikrant Tambe, observed that the trio prepared the fabricated Covid19 test reports in view of the exigency prevailing during the days of the Covid19 led lockdown restrictions.
Case Title: Villayati Ram Mittal vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
The Bombay High Court has held that once a document is notarised, neither the Notary nor any party is permitted to replace any page, and that replacing any page amounts to tampering with the original pleadings served upon the defendants. The Court observed that no party can be permitted to tamper with pleadings and documents in such a manner and described the conduct of the plaintiff, advocate on record and Notary as “shocking and unacceptable”.
Bombay High Court Directs BMC To Mandatorily Mention Appeal Remedy In Disciplinary Orders
Case Title: Shashikant Anant Kale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
The Bombay High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation to specifically mention the remedy of appeal, along with the relevant provision under the Rules, in every disciplinary order passed against its employees. The Court observed that the 2015 Rules provide a mechanism of appeal against an order imposing the penalty of termination or removal from service, and the State Government cannot be treated as the Appellate Authority under Section 520B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
Case Title: Rahul Ganesh Mehta vs Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 383
The Bombay High Court has held that a development agreement under which the developer is to develop the entire plot, hand over 50% of the area to the owner and retain the balance 50% cannot be construed as a pure construction contract for applying Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court observed that when there was no clause in the agreement requiring satisfaction of the plaintiff's credentials as a developer, the plaintiff was not required to prove the same.
Case Title: Jhang Union International LLC FZ vs LPG Amir Gas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
The Bombay High Court has issued urgent directions for immediate discharge of LPG from the arrested vessel LPG Amir Gas at Jaigarh Port, in view of the risk of fire or explosion and the “catastrophic consequences” that a large-scale release of LPG could result in. The Court further directed the concerned disaster management authorities and the Director General of Shipping to extend full cooperation and assistance for safe discharge of the cargo and to plan for its discharge in case the security amount ordered by the Court was not deposited.
Other Developments:
Bombay High Court Directs BCI To Scrutinise & Clear Pending Affiliation Approvals For Law Colleges
The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to forthwith scrutinize and process the applications submitted by four law colleges seeking approval and, if the applications are found in order, grant the necessary approvals by August 6, 2026. The Court further directed the Directorate of Higher Education, Pune to verify the approvals and include the approved colleges in its list.
Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Ankhad on Monday (August 10) recused himself from hearing a bunch of petitions filed by the Indian National Congress (INC), the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) and also the Communist Party of India (Marxist) challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, (MSPSA) 2025
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 10) granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) time till August 24 to respond to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum, challenging orders prohibiting the manufacture and sale of fresh stocks of the two products.
The Bombay High Court while issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday (August 12) orally opined that the commercial disputes pending between former liquor baron Vijay Mallya and the consortium of banks must be put to an end, and that the parties involved must 'move on' as otherwise it will affect the country's economy.
The Bombay High Court has observed that the issue of whether samples of imported food items should be drawn by authorised officers appointed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) or by Customs Officers and sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) is a recurring one. The Court, therefore, directed the Revenue Authority to file its stand on the issue.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) observed that the major problem with the stray dogs menace is the increasing population of stray dogs and therefore, ordered the Maharashtra Government to aggressively implement the 'sterilisation' program as mandated under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules of 2023.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) granted interim protection from arrest to Kamakhya Prasad Das, a former TISS student, who was booked for raising slogans "to free Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam." Single-judge Justice Prafulla Khubalkar agreed to hear Das' plea seeking anticipatory bail on August 31 and granted him interim protection from arrest in the meantime.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) closed for orders, a batch of petitions, seeking a complete ban on immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) made Ganesh idols in natural water bodies. The High Court has however, clarified that its last year's order which permitted immersion of only six feet and above height PoP idols in natural water bodies and rest (below six feet) in artificial tanks, to be implemented strictly by the Maharashtra Government in the forthcoming Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations.