Nominal Index [Citations 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 8 to 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 22] Amit Engineers vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 8Amrik Singh Saini vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 9Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav vs Electoral Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 10Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 11Apsara Co-operative Housing Society...
Nominal Index [Citations 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 8 to 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 22]
Amit Engineers vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
Amrik Singh Saini vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav vs Electoral Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Vijay Shankar Singh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd. (Erstwhile J M Mhatre Partnership Firm) vs The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
IPCA Laboratories Limited vs Anrose Pharma, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
S.G. Mittal Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs The Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited vs Kavita Janki Services Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
Anand Khosala vs Punam Kumari Singh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
Minco India Private Limited vs Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
Phalke Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Adit Enterprises, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh vs Commissioner of Police, Pune City, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
Milan Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
Final Orders/Judgments
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Passed With “Undue Haste” After Four-Year Delay
Case Title: Amit Engineers vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that it was passed in undue haste after nearly four years of inaction and without giving the parties any opportunity of hearing. A Single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne found that the arbitrator acted with undue haste and in clear breach of natural justice.
Case Title: Amrik Singh Saini vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
A woman's father-in-law refusing to listen to her complaint about her husband's 'extra-marital affair' and her brother-in-law (husband's brother) asking her to 'tolerate' her husband's beating would not amount to cruelty under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak delivered the ruling while quashing an FIR lodged against a man and his younger son, with the Pune Police, at the behest of his daughter-in-law.
Case Title: Kedar Mahadeo Jadhav vs Electoral Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Amid the political 'slugfest' between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar Faction) (NCP-SP), Bombay High Court on Monday (January 5) stayed the proposed elections of the Maharashtra Cricket Association (MCA), which were scheduled to take place on January 6 till further orders.
Case Title: Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
The Bombay High Court has held that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has no authority under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, to impose territorial restrictions on the business operations of an authorised pre-processing facility. The Court held that the amended circular dated 15 February 2024 and the consequential insertion of Clause 19 in the Consent to Operate (CTO) illegally curtailed the petitioner's right to carry on trade and business throughout the State, thereby violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Vijay Shankar Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
Mere installation of telecommunication antennas on the terrace and employing workers to manage the affairs of the society, does not make a cooperative housing society an 'industry' or an 'establishment' under the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act) or the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, respectively, held the Bombay High Court on Monday (January 5).
Case Title: Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court has held that though an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be maintainable even after framing of charge, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or routinely, and must be supported by strong and justifiable reasons demonstrating serious lapses in investigation. The Court observed that a fair investigation implies sufficient opportunity to conduct the investigation, and one cannot challenge the investigation unless there is justifiable ground to doubt the investigation.
Reassessment Notice To Non-Existent Firm Invalid: Bombay High Court Reiterates
Case Title: J M Mhatre Infra Pvt Ltd. (Erstwhile J M Mhatre Partnership Firm) vs The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are invalid in law. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Amit Jamsandekar set aside a reassessment notice and a consequential assessment order issued under the Income Tax Act against a partnership firm that had merged into a private limited company years earlier.
Bombay High Court Imposes ₹15 Lakhs Cost On Anrose Pharma For Infringing 'ZERODOL' Trademark
Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Limited vs Anrose Pnarma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
The Bombay High Court has held that Anrose Pharma's adoption and use of the trade mark 'ZEROVOL-P' in respect of pharmaceutical products amounted to a clear case of infringement and passing off of IPCA Laboratories Limited's registered trade mark 'ZERODOL'. The Court observed that in matters involving medicinal products, a stricter standard of comparison is required, as even a likelihood of confusion poses a serious risk to public health.
High Courts Cannot Exercise Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction Over NCLT In IBC Cases: Bombay High Court
Case Title: S.G. Mittal Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs The Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that contempt petitions alleging breach of orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in insolvency cases cannot be filed directly before the High Court. A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav said that once contempt powers are conferred on the NCLT by law, the High Court should not exercise parallel jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Salon From Using 'Jawed Habib' Marks After Franchise Expiry
Case Title: awed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited vs Kavita Janki Services Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained a local salon operator from using the “Jawed Habib”, “Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty” and “JH” names and logos, holding that their use after the end of a franchise agreement amounts to prima facie trademark and copyright infringement. A single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh passed the ad-interim order on January 6, 2026, in favour of the popular hair salon franschise Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited. The restraint will continue until February 3, 2026.
Software Ownership Disputes Involving IPR Not Arbitrable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Anand Khosala vs Punam Kumari Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
The Bombay High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal was right in refusing to decide who owns a software product, saying such questions involve intellectual property rights that affect the public at large (rights in rem) and cannot be settled through private arbitration. A Single-Judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne said that deciding ownership of the “Test Magic” software would inevitably involve ruling on trademark and copyright rights, which are not meant for arbitration.
Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Minco India Against Group Company Over 'MINCO' Mark
Case Title: Minco India Private Limited vs Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to Minco India Private Limited in a trademark dispute over the use of the word “MINCO”. The court held that the company had suppressed material facts and had allowed the rival firm to use the name since at least 2012 without objection. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed an interim application seeking to restrain Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited from using “MINCO” as part of its trade name.
Case Title: Phalke Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Adit Enterprises
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil suit filed by individual members of a housing society against a developer does not amount to abandonment of the arbitration clause in a redevelopment agreement. The Court said such a decision can be taken only by the society acting as a collective body. A Single-Judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that once a co-operative housing society is formed, individual members give up their separate will to the collective will of the society. Courts cannot infer the society's intent from the conduct of its members.
Case Title: Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh vs Commissioner of Police, Pune City
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
The act of wielding a deadly weapon like 'koyta' in the middle of the road is not an act prejudicial to public order that can cause public disorder or disturb the even tempo of life, held the Bombay High Court while quashing the preventive detention of a woman in Pune. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale noted from the material on record, particularly the statements of two in-camera witnesses, who spoke about the petitioner Nilofer Shaikh wielding a deadly weapon (koyta) in the middle of the road, extorting money and threatening people. However, the judges held that this act of the petitioner was 'largely individualistic' and did not cause harm to the public order.
Case Title: Milan Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Bombay High Court has held that where a landowner voluntarily agrees to surrender land reserved for a public purpose under a sanctioned Development Plan, free of cost but in consideration of tangible planning benefits such as waiver of compulsory open space requirements or grant of higher Floor Space Index (FSI), such surrender constitutes a valid acquisition by agreement under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Court observed that consideration under Section 126 need not be monetary and that FSI and development rights have definite monetary value.
Other Developments
Abu Salem Moves Bombay High Court Seeking 14-Days Emergency Parole Leave To Mourn Brother's Death
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (January 6) ordered the Maharashtra Government to file a reply to a plea filed by underworld gangster Abu Salem–convicted in the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blast Case–who has sought 14-days 'emergency parole leave' in view of his elder brother's death. Salem, who is in prison for more than 2 decades now, has petitioned the division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak through his counsel Farhana Shah, seeking urgent parole leave.
Bidding adieu to the Bombay High Court, Justice Mahesh Sonak who would be taking charge of the office of Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court soon, on Wednesday urged the members of the Bar to always be vocal about anything that would affect the institution emphasising that 'it is a crime to remain silent when it is the duty to speak.'
In her farewell address organised at the Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 8) Justice Revati Mohite-Dere, who will be taking over the Office of Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court–asked the bar to "speak truth to power, challenge injustice and stand firmly for the voiceless". Notably, the Central Government had on January 1 notified the appointment of Justice Dere as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court with effect from the date she assumes charge consequent to the transfer of incumbent Chief Justice.