Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 334]Nominal IndexShreesh Kumar vs Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323Gurbir Singh vs Samar Mohammed Khadas, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 324M/s. Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. East Tradvest Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 325Arkade Developers Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 334]
Nominal Index
Shreesh Kumar vs Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
Gurbir Singh vs Samar Mohammed Khadas, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
M/s. Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. East Tradvest Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
Arkade Developers Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
Shakir Jamil Ahmed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
Sachin Shivram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
Khushbu Iddrish Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. vs Sunita Dileep Nevatia, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
SSNA vs SAAR, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Punita Capoor, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
Ravindra Kini vs Municipal Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Shreesh Kumar vs Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
The Bombay High Court has held that a Co-operative Court exercising powers under Section 94(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 can implead a person who is not covered by the categories enumerated under Section 91(1)(a) to (e), if such person's presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the dispute. The Court, however, cautioned that such power is not unbridled and cannot be exercised to enlarge the scope of the dispute or bring within the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction matters which it is otherwise incompetent to adjudicate.
Case Title: Gurbir Singh vs Samar Mohammed Khadas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
The Bombay High Court has refused to stay the expulsion of a member from the Mumbai Press Club, holding that it is the prerogative of the Club to determine what conduct brings the institution into disrepute. The Court observed that where the Managing Committee has acted within its jurisdiction and followed the procedure prescribed by the Club's bye-laws, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Club on whether a member's conduct is disreputable.
Case Title: M/s. Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. East Tradvest Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere filing of a Vakalatnama or an affidavit-in-reply to an interim application does not, by itself, amount to a waiver of service of writ of summons or trigger the limitation prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for filing a written statement. The Court observed that the period for filing the written statement commences only upon proper service of the writ of summons, an express waiver thereof, or an order of the Court directing the defendant to file the written statement.
Case Title: Arkade Developers Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) keeping an application for an Occupation Certificate (OC) pending solely on the basis of alleged oral instructions issued by the Additional Chief Secretary. The Court observed that statutory authorities are required to act strictly in accordance with law and that oral instructions are inconsistent with the principles of transparency, accountability and the rule of law.
Case Title: Shakir Jamil Ahmed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that an oral waiver of the right available under Section 50 of the Act is not sufficient. The Court observed that where an accused elects not to exercise the right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, such waiver must be reduced into writing and duly signed by the accused.
Case Title: Sachin Shivram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
The Bombay High Court recently granted bail and suspended the lifetime rigorous imprisonment imposed on a woman and her alleged lover, both of whom were convicted for killing the woman's son as he allegedly learnt about their affair. Sitting at the Kolhapur bench, a division bench of Justice Milind Jadhav and Justice Nandesh Deshpande noted that the motive attributed to the convicts -Ashwini Chavan and Sachin Kumbhar - was that they had an extra marital affair and the duo killed Chavan's 10-year-old boy on the ground that he learnt about their affair and would have disclosed the same to his father (Chavan's husband).
Case Title: Khushbu Iddrish Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
Holding that police officers cannot ride roughshod over statutory safeguards in the name of investigation, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has ruled that police entering a woman's bedroom at night without a lady constable and seizing her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) amounted to a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution
Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
Observing that no public interest can be served by keeping information relating to a person's alleged involvement in a crime alive on the internet once the proceedings arising from it have been quashed, the Bombay High Court recently directed the Registrar General to mask the identity of a litigant who had invoked his "right to be forgotten".
Case Title: Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. vs Sunita Dileep Nevatia
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
The Bombay High Court has held that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession after alleged dispossession otherwise than in due course of law is maintainable before the Civil Court even if the parties stand in the relationship of licensor and licensee. The Court held that the existence of a licensor-licensee relationship does not by itself attract the bar under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, where the suit is founded on alleged unlawful dispossession and satisfies the requirements of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Case Title: SSNA vs SAAR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
The Bombay High Court has held that a Magistrate can invoke the search provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to recover a child allegedly taken away by his father from the mother's custody by force.
Case Title: Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Punita Capoor
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
The Bombay High Court has held that the grant of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by the High Court before transfer of a suit does not prevent the Bombay City Civil Court from examining the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh after the suit is transferred on account of enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court observed that, by virtue of Section 4A(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, the City Civil Court is required to treat the transferred suit as if it had been originally instituted before it and is competent to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it finds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: Ravindra Kini vs Municipal Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
Observing that now-a-days flat owners often carry out some alterations to cover open terraces or modify their rooms, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to come up with comprehensive guidelines specifying which kind of alterations in individual flats or buildings are permissible. The High Court has also asked the State to come up with some online portal so that citizens can simply upload documents relating to their proposed alterations and permissions can be granted by the civic authorities, at the earliest.
Other Developments
The Plaster of Paris (PoP) made Ganesha idols of above 6 feet like that of the popular 'Lalbaugcha Raja' should not be permitted to be immersed in any natural water body, the Bombay High Court was told on Wednesday (July 15) as it commenced hearing the final arguments in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking effective implementation of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines against immersion of PoP idols in natural water resources.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 15) ordered the State's Director General of Police (DGP) to submit a report spelling out if all the police stations across Maharashtra have operational CCTV cameras and also for how much period is their data preserved by the concerned police stations. A divison bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad has asked the DGP to submit his report on August 10.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Centre to file its reply by July 29 in a plea filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which he claims enables online content takedowns without adequate safeguards.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 16) questioned manufacturers of Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols on whether their commercial interests could override concerns relating to environmental protection and interests of the society at large.
The Bombay High Court was on Friday (July 17) told that the Maharashtra Government was trying to protect 'big mandals' by pressing for allowing immersion of Ganesh idols made of Plaster of Paris (PoP) above the height of six feet, in natural water bodies.
While hearing a plea filed by 12 Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holding budding cricketers challenging the decision of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which has made 'Indian Passport' mandatory for players to play in any of its tournaments, the Bombay High Court on Friday (July 17) said such foreign national players must consider 'returning' to India, which is the 'motherland' of the parents of such players.
The Bombay High Court in a special sitting on Saturday, cancelled the bail granted to Ramesh Mhatre, the sitting corporator from Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde), booked for assaulting three doctors of civic-run hospital. The high court today took suo motu cognisance of an order passed by a Magistrate court in Kalyan granting bail to Mhatre. Notably, doctors across Maharashtra had announced that they would abstain from work on July 22 after Mhatre was granted bail, along with his four associates who were also accused of actively assaulting the doctors.