Nominal Index [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302]Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs Remi Sales And Engineering Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 2Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 3Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs...
Nominal Index [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302]
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs Remi Sales And Engineering Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
Sharekhan Limited vs Monita Kisan Khade, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
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
The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature of Bombay vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
Union of India vs Nilesh Thakur, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
Deepak Shivkumar Bahry vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
Ambernath Vikas Aghadi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Ramesh Dada Kalel vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
Yusuf Khan s/o Bahadur Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
Rahul Sambhu Kabade vs Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
Digant Parekh (HUF) vs Akruti Kailash Construction, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Adil Lutfi Peters, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Kapil vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
Ramesh Gaichor vs NIA, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
Ashwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Sailappan Sodali Muthu vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Purbha Tulsa @ Tulsiram Dhutde vs Mohd Jafar Shaikh Ismail, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
Gavit Gulabsingh Suka vs Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sastha (Kolhapur), 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
Union of India vs Lt. Col. SK Rathore, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
Sunil Shankar Mohite vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
RB Bohora Education & Welfare Trust vs Vijay Mundaware, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
GDA vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
Joseph Achola Ouma vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
Anita Naik vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
Madhu Malti Enterprises vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
Abu Salem vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
Martin Soares vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
Anuradha Nayan Shah vs Jayantilal Vallabhdas Patni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
Chetan Samajik Pratishthan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra,2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar vs Tree Authority Department, Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
Elis Jane Quinlan vs Naveen Kumar Seth, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
Bipin Vasant Shinde vs Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
Prakash Krishna Gamre vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Minister for Cooperation & Textile Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
Aditya Shailendra Mane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
State Bank of India vs Anil D Ambani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
Shakuntala Tilakdhari Gupta vs Jawaharlal R Gupta, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare vs Teofilo J Monteiro, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti vs M/s Govindram Shobharam and Company, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Shobhit Kumar vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
Pradeep Prakash Baiker vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Aashu Engineering Works, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
Mumbai Fire Services Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Stavan Wilson Sathe vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Sunita Bapu Jagtap vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
Magnum Unit 'A' CHS Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
Shivkrupa Sahakari Patpedhi Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
Supriya Gaurav Devare vs Gaurav Jitendra Patil, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
Mahendra Sabharu Majhi vs M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
Auto-Taxi, Ola-Uber Men's Union vs Adani Airport Holdings Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
GTL Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
Geetabai Eknath Salunke vs Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs The District Deputy Registrar Co-op Soc, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
Quantum Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs AHCL-PEL, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
Shekhar Champalal Pagaria & Ors. vs CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
Ravidas vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
Jijabhau Dyaneshwar Temgire vs Gangaram Khandu Temgire, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
Govindrao Shankarrao Gaikwad vs The Ganesh Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
Md Arif Lalan Khan alias Naseem Khan vs Dilip Bhausaheb Lande, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
SS vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
Nagmani Ramnna Burumuri vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
Gopiki Soma Lingudkar vs Deputy Collector, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
Bholenath Mevalal Nishad vs Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
Sachin Chandramani Wankhede vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Nandkumar Narsingrao Pupala vs Dr. Pratapsingrao Pupala, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company vs Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
State of Maharashtra vs Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
Phonographic Performance Limited vs Absolute Legend Sports Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
Jerry Philips Jacob vs National Investigation Agency, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
Bhalchandra Chintaman Deo vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
Hope of Glory Ministry Trust vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
Vijay vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
Ebrahim Mia Mahomed Haji Janmahomed Chotani vs The Official Assignee of Bombay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
Narayan Dattarao Sontakke vs Nagnath Dattarao Sontakke, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
Ashish Chaman Fulzele vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Rekha Rupchand Singh (Deleted) vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
Sampatrao Ramrao Teli vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
Bhupesh Tukaram Meshram vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
Subhash Mahadu Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
Victoria Enterprises Limited vs DNM Trustee Service Private Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
Union of India vs Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
Sunil Waman Bhide vs Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
Gajanan Namdeo Oge vs Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
Anup Ganpat Gondkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
Municipal Council of Pusad vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
Rajani Ravindra Pol vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
Khandesh vs Late Taisaheb Sunanda, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Malan Anil Holkar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs Town Vending Committee - MCGM, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. vs General Manager, Central Railway, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
NBG International Private Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
State of Maharashtra vs Vilas Annasaheb Mahale, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
Narendra Lalachan Mehta vs Nayana Manoj Vasani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
Arun Iyer vs Board of Governors, IIT Bombay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
Vincent Philip D'Costa vs Stella Lawrence Freitas, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
M/s. CB Healthcare vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
Rohidas Band Kumavat vs Union Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
Deelip Gopalsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
M/s 63 Moons Technologies Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
Dheeraj Dreams Building No.1 CHS Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
State of Maharashtra vs Robin, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 149
Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
Late Kashinath Shivram Bharati vs Laxman Gyanba Bharati, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
M/s Lahoti Properties vs Gangabhishan, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
Rameshwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
Dr. Lalchand Jumani vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
Amol Dhondiba Khatal vs Vijay Alias Balasaheb Bhausaheb Thorat , 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
Maroti Raosaheb Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
Namdevrao Mohol Vidya and Krida Prathisthan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
Gunaji Ramji Surnar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
Santosh vs The Additional Divisional Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
Ganesh D Tapkir vs Baner Yethil Samasta Gramastha Mandal, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
Bhaskar Jagannath Gadekar vs The Deputy Collector, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
MK Madhavan vs R Subramaniam, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
Jitendra Ramnarayan Rathod vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
Ashrappa Yellappa Bhandari vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
Mormugao Port Authority vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 166
National Egg Co-Ordination Committee vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 168
Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
Vasanti Satish Joshi vs Thane Municipal Transport Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 170
Rahul Vinod Surushe vs State of Maharashtra , 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 171
Vikram Vijay Bhutekar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 172
HDFC Bank Limited vs Archana, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 173
M/s. Devi Construction LLP vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
Subodh C Korde vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
Pritam Harmalkar vs Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 177
Rajesh Govardhan More vs Pramod Ratan Patil, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 178
The Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 179
Milind Anantrao Parad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 180
Pravin Shyamrao Samarth vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 181
Mangesh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182
Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs Vidyut Metallics Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 184
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Suhas Shankar Pagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185
Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
Krishnakumar Ashar vs Archie John Varel, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
Ejaj Urf Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
Rescue Foundation vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 191
DNS vs NNS, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 192
Valencio D'Souza vs The Director, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 193
Mast MPB vs Dr PMB, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 194
Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 195
Kartik Aryan vs Vinsm Globe Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
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
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
Jhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Rahul Sudhindra Soni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre vs Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
Rubabuddin Shaikh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
Yuvraj Santrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
Rama Gunda Malkapure vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
Vaijenath Haridas Ambad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
Rohit Bandu Nikalje vs The Regional Officer, UIDAI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 246
Santosh Hiraman Lashkare vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
D S Textiles vs IIFL Finance Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
Maniar Ramesh Kumar vs CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
Kamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252
Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254
Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255
The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256
Geeta Kampani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 257
Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 258
Aditi Sanjaysingh Bais vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
KBC vs BSC, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
HRBK vs LRRK, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
Mayur Sakharam Sawant vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
Vinodkumar Chellappan Pillai vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 265
Shekhar Kakasaheb Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
Unaided Schools Forum vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 267
Mumbai Press Club vs Gurbir Singh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 268
Pradeep Rambhau Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 269
MKJ vs LMJ, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
N vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 271
Unilever Plc vs Ashok Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
Abhijeet Arun Gade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 273
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust vs HDFC Bank Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 274
Lt. Col. Retd. Jaigopal Nagarajan vs Vasudev Mariwala, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 275
Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 276
Swapnil Chandrakant Kashikar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 277
Anil Dhirajlal Ambani vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 278
Rajan Bhagwandas Sujanani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 279
Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 280
Maharashtra Wrestling Association vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
Ramesh Bhaskar Utturkar vs Unmesh Trimbak Naravane, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
Mahendra Dharmaji Papal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
Warsha @ Eleekusumchand Javeri vs Rajan Suren Goregaonkar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
Jeetendra Krishna Varma vs Director General of Civil Aviation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
Bagasarwala Property LLP vs The Joint Charity Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
Madhavi Vilas Gosavi vs Rajesh Mishra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties, Bombay vs Katty J. Mistry, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
M/s. M.P. Homes vs State of Maharashtra 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
Siddesh Pradeep Satpute vs State Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. vs Nitin Jaywant Mhatre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Smita Virendra Patil, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
Manoj Balasaheb Dhanavade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
Shyam Vasant Kale vs The Assistant Charity Commissioner-II, Nagpur, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
Jervis Fernandes vs Rumaldo Judas Agnelo Fernandes, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
Manas Sandip Sathe vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
Suraj Deepak Mane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
BK Corporation vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 299
Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300
ANG vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs Remi Sales And Engineering Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 1
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), holding that once goods are put to use by the buyer, such conduct amounts to deemed acceptance under section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ("SOGA"), the buyer cannot later reject the goods on the ground of alleged defects. A claim for damages can be filed for breach of warranty but goods cannot be rejected, the court ruled.
Case Title: Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
The Bombay High Court has recently restored enforcement proceedings initiated by IMAX Corporation for execution of foreign arbitral awards against E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt Ltd for breach of contractual obligations, holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies even between different stages of the same enforcement petition.
Case Title: Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
The Bombay High Court has held that where an arbitral award passed against a company is under challenge, and the company later successfully comes out of insolvency, the award holder cannot retain money withdrawn from court deposits if the claim itself is wiped out under an approved resolution plan. The court said such amounts must be returned, as the award itself no longer survives.
Bombay High Court Rejects Interim Injunction Sought by Sun Pharma Against “RACIRAFT” Rival “EsiRaft”
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
The Bombay High Court, in an interim order, has refused to restrain Gujarat based-Meghmani Lifesciences Limited from using the trademark “EsiRaft” for its pharmaceutical product used to treat heartburn and indigestion. The court held that the mark is not deceptively similar to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's “RACIRAFT.”
Bombay High Court Bars Restaurant Chains Operating 94 Outlets From Playing PPL Music Without License
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Trinetra Venture
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
The Bombay High Court has, in an interim order, restrained two restaurant operators running around 94 outlets from publicly playing music from Phonographic Performance Limited's repertoire without a license after finding a prima facie case of copyright infringement. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, in an order pronounced on December 24, 2025, held that continued unauthorised use would cause loss to PPL and therefore warranted interim protection.
Case Title: Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay High Court has held that once the State Government is satisfied that the delay in execution of a mining lease is for reasons beyond the control of the preferred bidder, the extension contemplated under the second proviso to Rule 10(6) of the Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015 must be for the full period of two years and cannot be curtailed. The Court observed that the provision does not confer discretion upon the State to grant an extension of a lesser duration, and any interpretation permitting a shorter extension would defeat the legislative intent and render the proviso redundant.
Case Title: Sharekhan Limited vs Monita Kisan Khade
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that mere violation of SEBI's trade confirmation circular does not automatically make a broker liable for market losses, and it set aside arbitral awards that directed stockbroker Sharekhan Limited to reimburse investors for losses sustained in Futures and Options (F&O) trading. The Single Bench on 24th December, 2025, decided that investors who authorised an individual to trade on their behalf could not thereafter retract those trades and shift losses to the broker. Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne held that clients who “relied on skills and took the risks in the volatility of the stock market, cannot later turn around and disown the trade transactions”, noting that regulatory violations may invite disciplinary action but do not automatically create civil liability for losses.
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.
Case Title: The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature of Bombay vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court recently came down heavily on the Maharashtra Government for its failure to take serious and strict action against the illegal sale of nylon manjha which continues to be a menace as despite an 'unequivocal ban' on its sale, the same is freely available and widely used, hurting citizens and even birds. A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Venegavkar said that the State's action against the menace of nylon manjha is 'episodic' and inconsistent with its own constitutional obligations.
Case Title: Union of India vs Nilesh Thakur
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 24
In an unusual order, the Bombay High Court recently while noting the 'pressing' need to provide for the widows and children of the Army men, who lost their lives for the country, ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to pay the 50 per cent of the interests accrued on the Rs 46.5 crores, to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund (AFBCWF).
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 25
The Bombay High Court on Monday (January 12) made it clear that this year while celebrating 'Makar Sankranti' is found flying a kite using nylon manjha will have to cough up Rs 25,000 and ones selling this illegal item will have to pay Rs 2.5 lakhs. A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode while the absence of proper regulation and Statute, there was a continued wide use of the manjha despite clear directions against it.
Case Title: Deepak Shivkumar Bahry vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd.
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 26
The Bombay High Court last week imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant for submitting a 'non-existing' judgment generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI) which the court and its clerks could not find and thus deprecated such practice of 'dumping' non-existing and irrelevant materials on the court. Single-judge Justice Milind Sathaye was seized with a dispute between two film producers owing to a flat at Mumbai's Oshiwara area, which was governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 27
The Bombay High Court while observing that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is not meant to punish victims of sexual exploitation, ordered the release of a woman who was rescued during a police raid and was sent into the custody of a protection home on the ground that she has not source of income, nor family and thus she may again indulge in 'immoral' activities.
Case Title: Ambernath Vikas Aghadi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 28
In a bid to settle the political chaos in Ambernath Municipal Council (AMC), the Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Collector of Thane to decide afresh, recognising an alliance, either of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde Faction) along with the Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar Faction) or that of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) along with the 12 'expelled' but elected Councillors of the Congress party and the NCP.
Case Title: Ramesh Dada Kalel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court on Monday, while upholding a man's conviction and life sentence for raping a minor girl, bemoaned the 'danger' of 'over-emphasis' on the rights of the accused while 'ignoring' the rights of the victim. A division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Manjusha Deshpande highlighted the fact that it is the victim, who sets the criminal law into motion and yet the rights of the victim are often ignored completely.
Case Title: Yusuf Khan s/o Bahadur Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 30
While denying bail to one of the prime accused in the 2022 brutal murder of pharmacist Umesh Kolhe by a group of Muslim men over his support to the controversial statements made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma against Prophet Mohammed, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that the offence was heinous, and strikes at the conscious of the society.
Case Title: Dr Mohinder Kumar vs The Chairman, NABARD
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 31
The Bombay High Court last week, came to the rescue of an employee of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), who challenged the penalty of 'Reprimand' imposed on him by the Central Complaints Committee (CCC) for 'video recording' his female colleagues who often 'disturbed' the working hours by 'sitting together, giggling, gossiping and singing.'
Case Title: Rahul Sambhu Kabade vs Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 32
The Bombay High Court while refusing to condone the delay of 203 days in filing a first appeal challenging a trial court's order, deprecated the practice of litigants blaming advocates for the delay without making the said advocate a party and without initiating any action against the said lawyer.
Case Title: Digant Parekh (HUF) vs Akruti Kailash Construction
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court held that the mere pendency of a civil suit relating to the enforcement of an agreement for sale or recovery of consideration does not bar the Registrar from deciding an application for membership or deemed membership under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court observed that the MCS Act confers power upon the Registrar to decide membership when the society does not perform its duty, and the Registrar can confer membership in such a situation, subject to the decision in the civil suit.
Case Title: Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare vs Union of India
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court has held that mere non-endorsement of travel particulars on a valid privilege pass held by a railway employee does not, by itself, disentitle the employee from being treated as a bona fide passenger under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court observed that where the pass was valid on the date of travel and there was no evidence of misuse or excess travel beyond entitlement, denial of bonafide status on technical grounds is unjustified.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Adil Lutfi Peters
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Holding that the finding by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) based on fact cannot be challenged through a writ of certiorari on the ground that the finding was incorrect as "inadequate and insufficient" material was adduced, the Bombay High Court recently imposed hefty costs of Rs 2 lakhs on HDFC Ergo Genral Insurance, for challenging a Rs 45.25 lakh compensation awarded to an Air India crew.
Case Title: Kapil vs Union of India
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has held that Public Sector Banks (PSBs) are autonomous entities entitled to prescribe their own eligibility and disqualification criteria and the mere absence of a uniform instruction from the Government of India does not render such conditions arbitrary. The Court observed that it cannot interfere with the recruitment choices of the Banks unless a specific recruitment condition is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of constitutional guarantees.
Case Title: Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 37
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court held that Preventive Detention is a 'punishment without a trial' and thus, a detention proposal made by a sponsoring authority without prior verification of the in-camera witness statements is materially defective and illegal and such a detention order cannot sustain in law.
Case Title: Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 38
In a bid to ensure that there is no delay in processing the preventive detention orders, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to cut short the long chain of officers, through whom a proposal to detain an individual moves.
Case Title: Ramesh Gaichor vs NIA
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 39
The Bombay High Court on Friday granted bail to Ramesh Gaichor and Sagar Gorkhe, both arrested since 2020 for their roles in the Elgar Parishad - Bhima Koregaon case. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak granted bail on the ground of long incarceration.
Case Title: Ashwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 40
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) last week expressed serious concern over repeated and systemic lapses by officers of the Drugs Department in adhering to the mandatory timelines prescribed under Rule 45 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court observed that failure to analyse drug samples within the stipulated period not only vitiates prosecutions but also jeopardises public health by allowing sub-standard drugs to remain in circulation.
Case Title: Sailappan Sodali Muthu vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 41
The Bombay High Court has held that a notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), cannot be sustained if it is issued mechanically and without disclosing which specific statutory provisions have been contravened. The Court observed that the power under Section 314 can be exercised only upon the Commissioner recording satisfaction that there is a contravention of Sections 312, 313 or 313A of the MMC Act, and such satisfaction must be reflected on the face of the notice itself.
Case Title: Purbha Tulsa @ Tulsiram Dhutde vs Mohd Jafar Shaikh Ismail
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside an order passed by a Civil Court in Nanded, which imposed a punishment of one month civil prison on four members of a family for failing to abide by a decree passed against them. Sitting at Aurangabad, single-judge Justice Siddheshwar Thombre quashed and set aside an order passed on April 18, 2023 against Purbha and Damu Dhutde and their cousins - Bhagwan and Suman Dhutde.
Case Title: Gavit Gulabsingh Suka vs Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sastha (Kolhapur)
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 43
If a teacher on probation engages in constant messaging with a student after school hours, which could amount to harassment, then in such a situation, the school management can terminate the teacher's service invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, without conducting any enquiry etc, the Bombay High Court held recently.
Case Title: Union of India vs Lt. Col. SK Rathore
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 44
Observing that a pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet-will and pleasure of the government, the Bombay High Court recently upheld the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Mumbai, which granted 'disability' pension to Army and Navy personnel for sustaining diseases like Diabetes, Spondylitis, Hypertension etc on the ground that these 'disabilities' were attributable to their service or either aggravated during their service.
Case Title: Sunil Shankar Mohite vs Union of India
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 45
Merely because a hospital is not categorised or enlisted as one to be 'requisitioned' for Covid-19 treatment, is not ground to deny compensation to a health worker, who died of Covid19 virus while on duty, held the Kolhapur Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court recently, while ordering the authorities to pay the compensation to the husband of a nurse under the `Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Package' (PMGKP).
Case Title: RB Bohora Education & Welfare Trust vs Vijay Mundaware
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 46
Observing that the powers of a Charity Commissioner under section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act are for 'supervision' and not for 'moral correction', the Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 29) quashed an order directing a Nashik-based School to issue public apology in two widely circulated newspapers there, after parents accused the School of 'cheating' them by misrepresenting that the institute was affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Board.
Caste Of Adopted Child Will Be Same As That Of Adoptive Parents: Bombay High Court
Case Title: GDA vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 47
The caste of an adopted child would be the same as that of his or her adoptive parents, held the Bombay High Court on January 29, while quashing the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Pune who cancelled the caste certificate issued to an adopted child. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Shriram Modak was dealing with a plea filed by a woman, who adopted a male child on August 22, 2014 which was permitted by a District Court in Pune under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Case Title: Joseph Achola Ouma vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 48
When a person, while being searched, is informed that he will be searched in the presence of a 'Gazetted' Officer, who is also member of the raiding party, then the same would not amount to 'compliance' to the mandatory provision of section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, held the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court while acquitting a Kenyan Nation, who was convicted for possessing cocaine and other drugs.
Case Title: Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 49
Insurance companies when accepting porting of a policy must show highest level of professionalism and due diligence in vetting the customer's previous insurance claim history and then take an 'informed' decision, the Bombay High Court ruled recently. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that the insurance companies when dealing with an application by a customer to port his or her insurance policy from one company to the another, cannot blame the customer for failing to furnish the details of previous policy's claim history as it is the task of the previous insurance company to provide such information.
Case Title: Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar
Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 50
In an interesting ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday (February 2) held that a court taking two decades to decide a matter cannot be a ground for a party to challenge the court's order after a delay of nearly two years. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore, refused to condone a delay of 645 days as prayed by one Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala, who sought to review an order passed in a First Appeal on February 6, 2024.
Case Title: Anita Naik vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 3), while acquitting two women convicted for hitting their relative's child with an iron rod on his head leading to bleeding injury, held that mere solitary instance of an assault on a child cannot amount to the offence of 'child abuse' under the Goa Children's Act, 2003
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
Observing that despite clear orders the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and also the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) have failed to contain the rising levels of air pollution in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court recently constituted a High Power committee (HPC) comprising retired Justice Amjad Sayed and retired Justice Anuja Prabhudesai.
Case Title: Madhu Malti Enterprises vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
The Bombay High Court recently held that merely storing or preserving any item in a cold storage or more particularly a refrigerator would not amount to 'manufacturing process' and would thus not make a premise where such preserving and storing is taking place, a factory under the Factories Act.
Case Title: Abu Salem vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused permission to underworld gangster Abu Salem to travel to his native place in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, to mourn the death of his brother, Abu Hakim Ansari. A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak upheld the order of the Appellate Authority which had allowed Salem emergency parole only on the condition that he pays Rs 17.60 lakh towards High Security Police Escort charges. Salem had earlier refused to pay the amount.
Case Title: Martin Soares vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) recently upheld the conviction and refused to reduce the 10-year sentence awarded to an 83-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl in 2012. A bench of Justice Shreeram Shirsat said that the age of the Appellant could not be a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence in such offences as the Court can't "turn a Nelson's eye" to the age of the victim and the ordeal the victim has undergone.
Case Title: Anuradha Nayan Shah vs Jayantilal Vallabhdas Patni
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
The Bombay High Court has ordered a fresh 'revaluation' of a prime property at Mumbai's Vile Parle area after finding that the initial process of auction of the plot was 'rigged' with bidders coming a 'syndicate' and 'under-bidding' for the property. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar therefore while ordering fresh auction, ordered forfeiture of the Rs 10 lakh each Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by five bidders, till further orders.
Case Title: Chetan Samajik Pratishthan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
The Bombay High Court has held that access to adequate sanitation and toilet facilities constitutes a basic human right forming an integral part of the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, even in slum areas created by encroachment on municipal land. The Court observed that once large populations reside in slums, whether authorised or unauthorised, the Municipal Corporation cannot abdicate its statutory and constitutional obligations to provide and maintain basic civic amenities.
Case Title: Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
The Bombay High Court has held that the power to impound an instrument under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, is a serious statutory power having direct civil consequences on the property rights of a citizen and therefore can be exercised only by the “Registering Officer” before whom the document was registered. The Court observed that Section 33A does not permit any other revenue authority or superior officer to assume such power merely on the basis of administrative hierarchy.
Case Title: Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
The Bombay High Court has held that though a Magistrate is empowered under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commit a case to the Court of Sessions at any stage of the inquiry or trial, such power cannot be exercised mechanically or solely on the basis of the severe nature of the punishment prescribed for the offence. The Court held that the Magistrate must form an opinion, supported by reasons, after discussing the evidence recorded before him, to conclude that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court.
Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to give wide publicity to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to ensure that no woman, particularly an unmarried woman, is forced to continue with an 'unwanted' pregnancy.
Case Title: Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
The Bombay High Court has held that mere telephonic contact with a co-accused, without any material indicating knowledge of or participation in the organised crime syndicate or the crime itself, is insufficient to prima facie connect an accused to the offence. The Court observed that at the stage of considering bail under the stringent provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), a bare allegation of having made calls, unaccompanied by evidence of conspiracy, knowledge, or facilitation, does not satisfy the statutory threshold.
Case Title: Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar vs Tree Authority Department, Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
Emphasising the need to 'strictly' follow the laws protecting trees and observing that 'trees are a poem which the earth writes upon the sky', the Bombay High Court recently held that even an officer, who fails to adhere to the due procedure for permitting felling or cutting of trees, is liable to be prosecuted under the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Tress Act, 1975.
Case Title: Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
Upholding a man's conviction for subjecting a minor girl to oral sex, the Bombay High Court recently reduced his life sentence to 12 years after noting that while in jail, the man 'successfully' passed exams on 'thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi' besides other programmes and also the fact that he had no other antecedents. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Sandesh Patil reduced the life sentence imposed on one Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, who was convicted by a special court under Section 6 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in December 2020.
Framing Of Issues Not Mandatory In Execution Of Foreign Decrees U/S 44A CPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Elis Jane Quinlan vs Naveen Kumar Seth
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
The Bombay High Court has held that while executing a decree passed by a foreign court in a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is not mandatory for the District Court to frame issues and direct the parties to lead evidence while examining whether the decree falls within any of the exceptions under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 CPC. The Court clarified that the inquiry contemplated under Section 44A(3) read with Section 13 is ordinarily summary in nature and not equivalent to a full-fledged trial as in a suit filed on a foreign judgment from a non-reciprocating territory.
Case Title: Bipin Vasant Shinde vs Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
The Bombay High Court has held that where promotions are governed by the principle of “seniority-cum-merit”, seniority must be reckoned in the feeder cadre and not based on the date of initial appointment to service. The Court observed that once an employee satisfies the minimum eligibility and merit requirements prescribed for the promotional post, seniority in the immediate lower cadre becomes determinative, and the employer cannot revert to the date of entry into service to alter the promotional hierarchy.
Case Title: Prakash Krishna Gamre vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court while quashing a Tribunal's order directing two sons to vacate the property of their father, recently held that every dispute or conflict between a senior citizen and his children will not fall within the ambit of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan quashed and set aside an order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on February 2, 2024 directing the petitioner sons to vacate the residential units in suburban Malad, Mumbai after their father filed an application under section 4 and 5 of the Act.
Case Title: Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Minister for Cooperation & Textile Department
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
The safeguards under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act for division of an existing housing society into two or more cannot be bypassed, the Bombay High Court made it clear recently while quashing an order registering a separate society comprising of 10 shops of a building, which was carved out of an existing society. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar held that without statutorily bifurcating an existing society under the MCS Act, the Deputy Registrar cannot register a separate society.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that the service of summons through an electronic mode or even through a mobile phone would be legal as it is permitted under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke sitting at the Nagpur seat, quashed an order of a Special POCSO Court which had imposed costs on a constable in a child abuse case, for serving summons to prosecution witnesses through mobile phone, particularly through WhatsApp.
Case Title: Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday (Feb 6) held that section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS) cannot be invoked in disputes pertaining to 'salary scale' as it would result in expanding the provisions' scope and also make the School Tribunals, a general forum to hear all kinds of financial claims by employees against school managements.
Case Title: Aditya Shailendra Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
Assaulting a boy to dissuade him from continuing a love relationship which is objected by the girl's family is an 'individualistic' act and cannot be considered to be against 'public order' to detain a person under 'preventive detention' laws, held the Bombay High Court earlier this month. Sitting at the Kolhapur circuit seat, a division bench of Justice Ravindra Avachat and Justice Ajit Kadethankar quashed and set aside a preventive detention order passed against one Aditya Mane, a resident of Solapur.
Case Title: Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
The Bombay High Court has held that if no steps are commenced for the acquisition of land after the expiry of the stipulated period under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the land is deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. The Court observed that once a valid purchase notice is served and the Planning Authority fails to take steps for acquisition within twenty-four months, the lapse operates by statutory deeming fiction and the authority cannot defeat such consequence by raising technical objections.
Case Title: Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a man and his family held that "indiscriminate" invoking of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by "highly educated" women complainants, only trivialises the object of the section 498A. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Pravin Patil noted the "disturbing pattern" of educated women filing FIRs under section 498A against the husband and his family members only to settle scores.
Case Title: State Bank of India vs Anil D Ambani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
The Bombay High Court on Monday allowed the appeals preferred by three banks - Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and the IDBI Bank challenging the order of a single-judge, who had stayed fraud classification proceedings initiated by them against Anil Ambani, the founder and chairman of the Reliance Group, after prima facie finding 'serious defects' in the forensic audit relied upon by the said banks.
Case Title: Shakuntala Tilakdhari Gupta vs Jawaharlal R Gupta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
Hiring a person even for a short period would bring in an 'employee-employer' relationship under the Employees' Compensation Act, held the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore ordered a Labour Commissioner to compensate the family of one Tilakdhari Gupta, who was 'hired' by Jawahar Gupta for a period of two months, to drive his car from Thane to Rajasthan, where Jawahar's brother's funeral was scheduled. One their way to Rajasthan i.e. on March 29, 2009, the car met an accident and Tilakdhari died while Jawahar and other passengers in the car sustained injuries.
Case Title: Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
The Bombay High Court today quashed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against Kishore Dewani, an Advocate by profession and an alleged close aide of former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who is booked in a multi-crore money laundering case. Single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe quashed the process and also the ED case against Dewani, who allegedly helped Deshmukh and his family to launder the money they allegedly earned illegally by collecting Rs 100 crore per month from various bar owners across Mumbai.
Case Title: The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare vs Teofilo J Monteiro
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
The Bombay High Court has held that a party cannot be denied examination of a witness merely on account of the witness being unwell, observing that such a direction is untenable in law and contrary to the principles of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that if a witness is competent and possesses relevant knowledge of the facts in issue, health concerns may justify adjournment, but cannot justify compelling a party to substitute the witness.
Case Title: VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
An 'intention' to insult the Indian National Flag by displaying it inverted - saffron down - is required for a person to be booked under the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, held the Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a 85-year-old man booked for insulting the national tricolour by displaying it inverted on the residential society's terrace while celebrating the Republic Day in 2017.
Case Title: Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti vs M/s Govindram Shobharam and Company
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
The Bombay High Court has held that demolition of tenanted premises during the pendency of an eviction suit does not extinguish the tenancy nor defeat the landlord's bona fide requirement under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRCA). The Court observed that where tenancy is created in respect of a building standing on land, both the land and the superstructure constitute the subject matter of demise, and destruction of the building alone does not render the eviction proceedings infructuous.
Case Title: Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
Emphasising on the importance of education in today's world, the Bombay High Court recently came to rescue of a 13-year-old girl student, who was removed from her school for non-payment of fees. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode held the school's action to be 'illegal and arbitrary' in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and therefore, ordered the Father Agnel School at Bhandara District to re-admit the class 7th girl student and also ordered the student's parents to clear the fees of Rs 23,900 within two weeks.
Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Passing orders directing Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) under section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 to ascertain a person's mental health based on the proof adduced by his or her opponent, would create a mechanism that may be weaponised by an adversarial party instead of protecting the 'rights' of the person, held the Bombay High Court recently.
Threat Of Suicide To Force Girl To Accompany Accused Constitutes Kidnapping: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shobhit Kumar vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
If a man threatens a girl to come along with him else he will commit suicide, the same would amount to 'enticing' her and a clear case of kidnapping is made out in such circumstances, held the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Shreeram Shirsat while upholding a man's conviction under section 363 (kidnapping) and section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, noted the testimony of the victim, who stated that the appellant had asked her to meet him at the Panaji Bus Stand on December 11, 2021 and had clearly threatened her that if she would not come, he will commit suicide.
Case Title: Pradeep Prakash Baiker vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, a person cannot be acquitted just because the medical officer does not give any opinion about sexual assault. Single-judge Justice Ravindra Joshi, while upholding a man's conviction under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, noted the argument of the convict that the medical officer who testified before the trial court did not give any opinion on sexual assault nor did he speak about any injury on the victim's person.
Case Title: Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay High Court has held that the six-year limitation prescribed under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, governs the entire revisional process, from initiation to passing of the final order, and not merely the issuance of notice. The Court observed that a fiscal statute must be construed strictly and that permitting initiation within six years but completion thereafter would introduce uncertainty in property transactions contrary to legislative intent.
Case Title: The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Aashu Engineering Works
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
The Bombay High Court recently invoked Benjamin Franklin and explained how laws in India continue to be violated only because of low deterrent effect and how important it is in a civilised society, to obey law out of principle rather than just fear of punishment. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain explained that penal provisions have a dual effect - one to penalise an offender or defaulter and the second one is to act as a deterrent.
Case Title: Mumbai Fire Services Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
The Bombay High Court has held that the Fire Brigade Department is an integral part of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and constitutes an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Court observed that there is unity of ownership, management, finance and functional integrity between the Corporation and its Fire Brigade Department, and that internal budgetary arrangements or departmental specialisation do not create a separate legal identity.
Case Title: Stavan Wilson Sathe vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Mere presence of a painting of the Holy Cross or a statue of Lord Jesus Christ in a person's house cannot be used as a ground to hold that the said person or his forefathers have converted into Christianity, held the Bombay High Court recently. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Mukulika Jawalkar and Justice Nandesh Deshpande quashed and set aside an order of a District Caste Scrutiny Committee which refused to grant the status of "Mang or Matang", a Scheduled Caste, to one Stawan Wilson Sathe.
Sunita Bapu Jagtap vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
The Bombay High Court has held that supervisory staff deputed to manage traffic operations during the COVID-19 pandemic were exposed to the same risk as drivers and conductors, and are therefore entitled to compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the applicable Government Resolution and MSRTC circulars. The Court observed that the deceased did his job at the risk to his life in a time when the life of the general public came to a standstill, and the public services, including transport, were kept open for limited services.
Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
At the time when more and more women are joining the workforce for becoming economically independent, the authorities by denying them maternity leave benefits cannot compromise their role as a care giver to the child, observed the Bombay High Court while ordering the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pay and extend the benefits to a Doctor, working in the civic-run KEM hospital, at the earliest. A division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Advait Sethna highlighted the fact that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was brought in for protecting the 'dignity' of motherhood.
Case Title: Magnum Unit 'A' CHS Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
The Bombay High Court has held that once a quasi-judicial authority has adjudicated an application for deemed conveyance on merits and rejected it without granting liberty to file a fresh application, it cannot subsequently take a contrary view on the same issue merely because a fresh application is presented in a modified form. The Court observed that such a course would undermine the principle of finality, as every unsuccessful applicant could simply alter the measurements or reframe the relief and compel the authority to decide the same issue again.
Case Title: Shivkrupa Sahakari Patpedhi Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
The Bombay High Court has held that a Special Report submitted under Section 81(5B) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and an order directing inquiry under Section 88 are not “orders” or “decisions” amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act. The Court observed that if Section 154 is interpreted to include audit reports under Section 81, the parties would challenge reports before inquiry even begins, and the inquiry contemplated under Section 88 would become redundant because proceedings would be stalled at the threshold.
'Divorce Decree Cannot Be Granted By Relying Merely On Whatsapp Chat': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Supriya Gaurav Devare vs Gaurav Jitendra Patil
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
The Bombay High Court has held that a decree of divorce cannot be granted merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats without proper proof through evidence. The Court observed that allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must be established through legally admissible evidence, and the opposing party must be given an opportunity to rebut the material relied upon.
Case Title: Mahendra Sabharu Majhi vs M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
The Bombay High Court has held that an application for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured workman. The Court observed that the Act only requires the certificate to be issued by a “qualified medical practitioner” and does not mandate that such a practitioner must have treated the injured.
Case Title: Auto-Taxi, Ola-Uber Men's Union vs Adani Airport Holdings Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
The Bombay High Court on Thursday, while refusing to permit Muslim drivers and passengers to offer Namaz at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), even for the limited period of Ramadan, made it clear that it cannot, at any cost, compromise the security of the airport and whether it is religion or something else, court will only favour security.
Case Title: GTL Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
The Bombay High Court has held that an investigating agency cannot continue a criminal investigation merely in the hope of discovering unknown accused persons when the preliminary enquiry does not disclose the commission of any prima facie offence. The Court observed that the machinery of criminal law cannot be set in motion to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry where the material collected during the preliminary enquiry itself fails to reveal deception, conspiracy, or fraudulent conduct.
Case Title: Geetabai Eknath Salunke vs Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
The Bombay High Court has held that compensation determined in proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be restricted only to the amount awarded in the “foundational award” relied upon for redetermination. The Court observed that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision enacted to remove inequality in compensation between landowners whose lands are acquired under the same notification, and therefore, the power of redetermination cannot be narrowly construed to limit compensation strictly to the rate awarded in the foundational award.
Case Title: Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs The District Deputy Registrar Co-op Soc
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
The Bombay High Court has held that internal agreements or contractual clauses between the promoter and flat purchasers cannot override the statutory mandate of granting deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The Court observed that once construction is completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the society is formed, the promoter's obligation to convey his right, title and interest in the land and building becomes absolute, subject only to what is reflected in the sanctioned plan and law.
Case Title: Quantum Park Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs AHCL-PEL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
The Bombay High Court has held that pendency of a civil suit concerning alleged construction irregularities or inter se disputes between promoters does not bar the grant of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The Court observed that an order of deemed conveyance does not finally adjudicate title and that civil disputes regarding FSI utilisation or additional floors cannot be treated as a blanket prohibition against the exercise of statutory power.
Case Title: Shekhar Champalal Pagaria & Ors. vs CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
The Bombay High Court has held that the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur does not automatically divest the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court of jurisdiction in matters where the original and appellate authorities whose orders are challenged are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. The Court observed that the order passed by an appellate authority constitutes a substantial part of the cause of action, and therefore, the High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction such authority is situated, continues to have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.
Case Title: Ravidas vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
The Bombay High Court has held that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot be based merely on documents collected during an investigation unless their contents are proved through competent witnesses who can speak to their authenticity. The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer has duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties.
Case Title: Jijabhau Dyaneshwar Temgire vs Gangaram Khandu Temgiri
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
The Bombay High Court has held that a defendant is not required to file a separate application for the production of documents that are sought to be used for confronting a witness during cross-examination, provided such documents are not foreign to the pleadings in the case. The Court observed that the Civil Procedure Code expressly carves out an exception permitting production of documents at the stage of cross-examination for the purposes of contradicting a witness or refreshing the witness's memory.
Case Title: Govindrao Shankarrao Gaikwad vs The Ganesh Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
The Bombay High Court has held that the requirement of depositing 50% of the recoverable dues under Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is mandatory even when a revision application challenges only consequential or derivative actions taken pursuant to a recovery certificate and not the recovery certificate itself. The Court observed that permitting litigants to avoid the statutory deposit requirement by challenging only execution steps would defeat the legislative purpose of ensuring speedy recovery of dues of co-operative societies.
Case Title: Md Arif Lalan Khan alias Naseem Khan vs Dilip Bhausaheb Lande
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
A mere visit to a constituency by a 'Star Campaigner' on the polling day would not be enough to constitute 'undue influence' or 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of People Act of 1951, held the Bombay High Court. The High Court also refused to accept that a mere visit by then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in Mumbai's Chandivali area during the 2025 State Assembly elections, which was later converted into a 'road show', on the polling day itself, was an attempt to interfere with the elections.
Case Title: SS vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
A girl would not accuse her father of a serious charge like rape only on an apprehension that he would discontinue her studies and get her married, said the Bombay High Court while rejecting a theory of 'false implication' raised by a man convicted for raping his own minor daughter.
Case Title: Nagmani Ramnna Burumuri vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court recently held that the cases pertaining to accidental deaths of railway employees in train accidents, should never land in courts or tribunals and instead, the Railways must themselves go through the case file and grant compensation to the family of the deceased. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain held that the Railways must not compel the family members of the deceased employee to run from pillar to post.
Case Title: Gopiki Soma Lingudkar vs Deputy Collector
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
The Bombay High Court has flagged serious procedural irregularities being followed by revenue authorities in Goa while exercising quasi-judicial powers under various local laws and has issued directions to streamline the process of pronouncing orders and issuing certified copies. The Court observed that the lack of a proper procedure in recording orders, pronouncing judgments, and issuing certified copies creates uncertainty in computing limitation periods.
Case Title: Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
The Bombay High Court has held that decisions relating to the grant or denial of security clearance in projects of strategic importance fall primarily within the domain of the executive and are closely connected to considerations of national security. The Court observed that while judicial review is available in limited circumstances, courts ordinarily exercise restraint in matters involving national security, diplomatic relations, and strategic assessments undertaken by the Union Government.
Case Title: Bholenath Mevalal Nishad vs Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
The Bombay High Court has held that an application filed by a senior citizen seeking eviction of a child or relative from property in which the senior citizen has rights is maintainable even if no monetary maintenance is claimed. The Court observed that the definition of “maintenance” under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, includes provision for residence and protection necessary for a senior citizen to live a normal and dignified life.
Case Title: Sachin Chandramani Wankhede vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
The role of a lawyer in the society is to help an individual by finding out a solution to one's dispute and not to loot their money, observed the Bombay High Court recently while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against a lawyer, who allegedly 'convinced' his client to pay Rs 1.25 lakhs bribe to two police officers so that the client's son could get 'better facilities' in jail.
Case Title: Nandkumar Narsingrao Pupala vs Dr. Pratapsingrao Pupala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
The Bombay High Court has held that service of citation to the next of kin is not mandatory in a petition filed under Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of Letters of Administration of an estate not fully administered, and the Court may dispense with such citation in appropriate cases. The Court observed that when probate of a will has already been granted after considering objections of the next of kin, a subsequent petition under Sections 258 and 259 merely seeks appointment of a new representative to administer the unadministered portion of the estate and does not reopen issues already settled at the stage of the original grant.
Case Title: Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company vs Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
The Bombay High Court has held that a municipal authority cannot refuse to grant a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by disregarding a subsisting civil court decree merely on the ground that an appeal against the decree is pending. The Court observed that under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filing of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decree, and unless the decree is stayed by the appellate court, it continues to remain operative and binding on the parties.
Failure To Examine Forensic Experts Whose Reports Are Relied Upon Vitiates Trial: Bombay High Court
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
The Bombay High Court has held that failure to summon and examine forensic experts whose reports are relied upon by the trial court vitiates the trial and constitutes a failure of justice. The Court observed that the whole purpose of the trial is to ascertain the truth of the matter and all steps in the direction of unearthing the truth ought to be taken by the Court, even if the prosecution is remiss in its duty and the accused at the relevant point in time has not shown awareness.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs Absolute Legend Sports Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
The Bombay High Court on Thursday restrained the Absolute Legend Sports Pvt. Ltd. which is organising the Legend League Cricket (LLC), a T20 tournament featuring retired international cricket players, from using the songs copyrighted by the Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) in its tournament which commenced from March 11.
Case Title: Jitendra Kawarilal Kothari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
The Bombay High Court has held that when a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has already determined the nature of a transaction between parties, such findings operate as res judicata and are binding on authorities exercising powers under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The Court observed that statutory authorities under the Act cannot record findings contrary to the adjudication of the Civil Court regarding the character of the transaction.
Case Title: Jerry Philips Jacob vs National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
The Bombay High Court recently refused to release a 46-year-old man on bail, who was booked by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for being the 'mastermind' of an international job racket, wherein educated youth from India were 'trafficked' abroad and were then forced to work in fake call centres in Laos and dupe Americans and Britishers by convincing them to invest in cryptocurrency.
Case Title: Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
The Bombay High Court has held that the import of cosmetics into India requires a mandatory registration certificate from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) even if the goods are brought into India only for warehousing and intended re-export. The Court observed that once goods are brought into India, the act constitutes “import” within the meaning of the Customs Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and therefore compliance with the regulatory framework governing import of cosmetics is mandatory irrespective of whether the goods are meant for domestic sale or eventual re-export.
Case Title: Bhalchandra Chintaman Deo vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
The Bombay High Court has held that litigants who indulge in material suppression of facts while invoking writ jurisdiction cannot claim the benefit of leniency in delay on the ground of violation of the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. The Court observed that although the right to property is a constitutional right, litigants approaching the writ court must do so with clean hands.
Case Title: Hope of Glory Ministry Trust vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
The Bombay High Court last week quashed an order, by which Sangli Police 'abruptly' cancelled the permission granted to 'Hope of Glory Ministry Trust' to conduct 'Maharashtra Prayer Festival' from March 13 to March 15, wherein popular evangelist Paul Dhinakaran delivered 'prophetic' messages and daily prayers before over 50,000 persons.
Case Title: Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
The Bombay High Court recently commuted a man's life imprisonment for murdering his own brother to 10 year imprisonment under culpable homicide not amounting to murder after noting that he murdered the brother, because he had vices like consuming tobacco and gutka and often quarrelled and even assaulted him (convict) and their aged mother whenever they advised him against the vices.
Case Title: Vijay vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concern over the practice of education authorities keeping proposals relating to teachers' inclusion in the Shalarth system pending for months or even years, resulting in teachers being deprived of their lawful salaries. The Court observed that once the appointment of a teacher on an aided post has been duly approved, inclusion of the teacher's name in the Shalarth Pranali for salary disbursement is a consequential administrative step and cannot be indefinitely delayed by the authorities.
Case Title: Ebrahim Mia Mahomed Haji Janmahomed Chotani vs The Official Assignee of Bombay
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
The Bombay High Court has ordered the partition of a property in Pune's Yerawada area, bringing partial closure to a family dispute that has been pending since 1950. The Court directed that the remaining portion of the land be divided among the concerned parties according to a plan prepared by an architect and approved by the Court.
Case Title: Narayan Dattarao Sontakke vs Nagnath Dattarao Sontakke
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
The Bombay High Court has held that delay in filing a written statement may be condoned in partition suits where denial of such opportunity would prevent effective adjudication of the rights of the parties. The Court observed that refusal to permit a defendant to file a written statement may hinder proper determination of rights in the property and prolong the litigation.
Case Title: Ashish Chaman Fulzele vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to remove the distance limit imposed for admissions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), observing that such restrictions may defeat the purpose of provision under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act.
Case Title: Rekha Rupchand Singh (Deleted) vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
The Bombay High Court has held that a compensation claim arising out of a railway accident cannot be rejected merely because there is a minor variation in the passenger's name appearing on the season ticket when the identity card number mentioned on the ticket matches and establishes the identity of the passenger. The Court observed that if the identity of the passenger is otherwise proved through reliable material such as the identity card issued by the railway authorities, a clerical or truncated name printed on the ticket cannot defeat the statutory right to claim compensation.
Case Title: Sampatrao Ramrao Teli vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
The scheme for reserving 25 per cent seats for the underprivileged under the Right To Education (RTE) Act is designed to distribute educational opportunities among as many eligible children but the said scheme does not confer a right on a parent to seek allocation of a seat multiple times for the same child, held the Bombay High Court recently.
Case Title: Bhupesh Tukaram Meshram vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
The Bombay High Court has held that dismissal from service based on findings in departmental proceedings cannot be sustained where the delinquent employee has been acquitted in a criminal trial arising from the same incident and based on identical evidence. The Court observed that where the charges, witnesses, evidence, and circumstances in both proceedings are substantially the same, allowing the departmental findings to stand after acquittal in the criminal case would be unjust and oppressive.
Case Title: Subhash Mahadu Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
The Bombay High Court has held that in cases involving the alleged cultivation of cannabis under the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish through cogent evidence that the accused was actually cultivating the plants, and not merely present at the spot or named in land records. The Court observed that asking the accused to
Case Title: Victoria Enterprises Limited vs DNM Trustee Service Private Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
The Bombay High Court has held that an objection regarding improper joinder of causes of action raises a triable issue and cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court observed that such objections require adjudication on evidence and cannot justify dismissal of a suit at the threshold.
Case Title: Union of India vs Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss a suit as infructuous when subsequent events render the original cause of action non-existent. The Court observed that it is the duty of the court to terminate infructuous litigation, and it cannot retain such suits merely to preserve interim orders or on speculative future claims.
Case Title: Sunil Waman Bhide vs Chandrahas Laxman Kanhere
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
The Bombay High Court has held that questions relating to title or ownership of property cannot be adjudicated in probate proceedings and that a person who challenges the testator's title to the property bequeathed under a will is a stranger to probate jurisdiction. The Court observed that probate proceedings are confined to examining the genuineness and due execution of the will, and any dispute concerning ownership of the property must be adjudicated in independent civil proceedings.
Case Title: Gajanan Namdeo Oge vs Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
The Bombay High Court has held that employees absorbed from Gram Panchayats into a Municipal Corporation are entitled to parity in pay with regular employees if they perform identical duties. The Court observed that denial of equal pay for equal work in such circumstances amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Anup Ganpat Gondkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
The Bombay High Court has held that an order directing closure or eviction of premises under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, does not require a prior conviction of the owner, occupier or lessor. The Court observed that Section 18(1) is a preventive provision enabling action based on material indicating use of premises as a brothel, whereas the requirement of conviction applies only to proceedings under Section 18(2).
Case Title: Municipal Council of Pusad vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot freeze bank accounts or recover provident fund dues without issuing a fresh notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The Court observed that reliance on a stale notice issued several years earlier violates principles of natural justice and renders the recovery action unsustainable.
Case Title: Rajani Ravindra Pol vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
The Bombay High Court has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal is not an expert body competent to conclude that death occurred due to trespass merely on the basis of the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court observed that in the absence of cogent evidence or expert testimony, such findings are unsustainable and cannot be used to deny compensation under the Railways Act.
Case Title: Khandesh vs Late Taisaheb Sunanda
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 24 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, does not bar a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit for refund of earnest money even after dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The Court observed that while Section 24 bars claims for compensation in certain circumstances, it does not extinguish the right to seek other reliefs such as a refund of earnest money arising from the same transaction.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd vs Malan Anil Holkar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
Just because a student scores average or below average marks does not mean s/he would not be able to earn well after becoming a professional and thus there cannot be any justification to claim any 'direct connection' between the marks obtained and the potential to earn in future, held the Bombay High Court recently while enhancing compensation in a Motor Vehicle Accident matter.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
The Bombay High Court was recently 'aghast' to note a 'shocking' incident wherein a Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) on a minor rape victim failed, resulting in the birth of a baby girl of nearly 26 weeks, who was 'starved to death' by the doctors at the District Civil Hospital in Maharashtra's Satara. Sitting at the Kolhapur seat, a division bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar and Justice Pravin Patil ordered a 'thorough' enquiry into the incident especially because the Civil Surgeon had on a previous date informed the judges that the MTP was 'successful.'
Case Title: Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union vs Town Vending Committee - MCGM
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
The Bombay High Court on Monday (March 23) ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Police to conduct a 'thorough' verification of the identity of all the hawkers on the streets of the city and check if there are any 'Bangladeshis' or other 'immigrants' involved in hawking activities, and if found, the authorities have been ordered to take 'appropriate' action against them.
Case Title: Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. vs General Manager, Central Railway
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
The Bombay High Court has held that long-standing contractors cannot claim an exclusive or perpetual right to continue merely on the ground that their livelihood depends on the activity. The Court observed that ensuring a fair and transparent tender process providing equal opportunity to all similarly placed persons cannot be curtailed to preserve existing contractors' interests.
Case Title: NBG International Private Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
The Bombay High Court has held that customs authorities cannot disregard clearance granted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and subject imported goods to re-testing without any cogent justification. The Court observed that once a competent statutory authority like FSSAI certifies goods as compliant and fit for human consumption, questioning such certification without valid reasons is arbitrary and without authority of law.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Vilas Annasaheb Mahale
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (March 24) set aside a judgment of a Nashik Sessions Court awarding death sentence to a man convicted for raping and killing a minor girl, on the ground that the accused had no legal representation during the trial and therefore, remanded the matter back to the sessions court to conduct the trial afresh.
Case Title: Narendra Lalachan Mehta vs Nayana Manoj Vasani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of material facts to substantiate allegations of suppression in an election petition constitutes non-compliance with Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. The Court observed that failure to plead essential facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action renders the election petition liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Case Title: Arun Iyer vs Board of Governors, IIT Bombay
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
The Bombay High Court has held that an employer can impose a penalty on an employee based on the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act without conducting a separate departmental inquiry or issuing a formal charge-sheet. The Court observed that the ICC report constitutes an inquiry report under the statutory scheme, and requiring a second inquiry would amount to an impermissible duplication of proceedings.
Case Title: Vincent Philip D'Costa vs Stella Lawrence Freitas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
The Bombay High Court has held that a graphologist's report cannot be admitted as expert evidence to determine the testator's state of mind unless its relevance and scientific basis are demonstrated in terms of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that in the absence of showing that graphology is a recognised science capable of assisting the Court, such opinion cannot be treated as admissible expert evidence.
Case Title: M/s. CB Healthcare vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
The Bombay High Court has held that a Sessions Court cannot take direct cognisance of offences under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate, as required under Section 193 of the CrPC. The Court observed that in the absence of any express provision in the Act permitting such direct cognisance, the statutory procedure under the CrPC must be followed.
Case Title: Rohidas Band Kumavat vs Union Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
A passenger trying to de-board a train at a station where the train does not halt and sustains an injury, the said injury cannot be termed as a 'self-inflicted injury' but would constitute an 'untoward incident' qualifying such a passenger to seek compensation under section 124A of the Railways Act, held the Bombay High Court on March 24.
Case Title: Deelip Gopalsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
The Bombay High Court has held that assault on public servants by a private individual, particularly in the course of unlawful agitation, constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. The Court observed that such acts reflect a breach of social duty and undermine public order, thereby falling within the concept of depravity and conduct contrary to accepted standards of society.
Case Title: M/s 63 Moons Technologies Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
The Bombay High Court earlier this month made it clear to Jignesh Shah and 63 Moons Technologies Limited, the alleged accused in the multicore National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) Scam, that just because the National Companies Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved the One Time Settlement (OTS) for 5,682 traders, it will not exonerate them from the pending criminal cases.
Case Title: Dheeraj Dreams Building No.1 CHS Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
The Bombay High Court has held that a co-operative housing society can refuse membership to a purchaser where the builder has purported to sell a “refuge area” as a residential flat, as admitting such a person would violate Section 154B-5 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Court observed that where the flats in question do not exist, and membership would exceed the number of permissible units, the society is justified in refusing admission.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Robin
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)149
The Bombay High Court has held that the circulation of spurious drugs poses a serious threat to public health and weakens public trust in healthcare systems. The Court observed that offences involving the supply of fake medicines to government hospitals are grave in nature and cannot be treated lightly at the stage of grant of bail.
Case Title: Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)150
The Bombay High Court on Friday (March 27) dismissed a petition seeking CBI probe against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its director Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani for allegedly stealing over USD 1.55 billion worth of natural gas from neighbouring Oil and Natural Gas Corporations (ONGC) wells in the Krishna Godavari Basin, off the coast of Andhra Pradesh.
Case Title: Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
In a major respite for Adani Group's— Adani Green Energy Ltd., the Bombay High Court on Friday (March 27) dismissed a plea which sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the allegations made against the company for allegedly paying crores of bribes to secure solar power contracts across several States in India.
Case Title: Late Kashinath Shivram Bharati vs Laxman Gyanba Bharati
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)152
The Bombay High Court has held that where a brother cultivates agricultural land belonging to his widowed sister, such cultivation would fall within the category of a “family member” and not give rise to a deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Court observed that permissive cultivation by a close family member, particularly in the context of a widow, does not create tenancy rights in the absence of clear evidence of intention to create a tenancy.
Case Title: M/s Lahoti Properties vs Gangabhishan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)153
The Bombay High Court has held that where a plaintiff withdraws a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, he cannot seek additional reliefs in the subsequent suit unless specific liberty to claim such reliefs was obtained. The Court observed that omission to claim available reliefs in the earlier suit attracts the bar under Order II Rule 2 and Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the CPC, rendering the subsequent suit not maintainable.
Case Title: Rameshwar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)154
The Bombay High Court has held that a disabled employee who is shifted to another post or cadre under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act cannot claim seniority in the new cadre based on past service in the previous post. The Court observed that while the statute protects continuity of pay and service benefits, it does not permit disturbance of the existing seniority of employees already working in the cadre to which the disabled employee is shifted.
Case Title: Dr. Lalchand Jumani vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)155
The Bombay High Court has held that the acquittal of an employee in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him to full pay and back wages for the period of suspension. The Court observed that entitlement to full salary depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion exercised by the competent authority under applicable service regulations.
Case Title: Amol Dhondiba Khatal vs Vijay Alias Balasaheb Bhausaheb Thorat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
The Bombay High Court has held that an election petition alleging non-disclosure of material information in the election affidavit cannot be rejected at the threshold if it discloses triable issues requiring adjudication. The Court observed that where specific averments indicate suppression of material facts affecting the validity of nomination, the petition must proceed to trial.
Case Title: Maroti Raosaheb Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside an order passed by Maharashtra's Nanded Police refusing permission to controversial right-wing leader T Rajasinh Thakur to participate in a congregation, on the ground that his 'inflammatory' hate speeches cause differences between the Hindu and Muslim communities.
Case Title: Namdevrao Mohol Vidya and Krida Prathisthan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
The Bombay High Court recently stayed the notice issued by the Chief Executing Officers (CEO) of various Zilla Parishads in Maharashtra, which provided for removing specially-abled children from their special schools to admitting them in normal schools to bring them into the mainstream education.
Case Title: Gunaji Ramji Surnar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere presence of a JCB in a farmer's field and residue of clay in its bucket is not sufficient to conclude that it was being used for illegal sand excavation. The Court observed that such assumptions by revenue authorities, without proper inquiry or evidence, reflect a casual and arbitrary exercise of power, causing undue hardship to farmers.
Case Title: Santosh vs The Additional Divisional Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
The Bombay High Court has held that the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak does not constitute a “salaried office” or “office of profit” under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and therefore does not attract the disqualification of an elected member. The Court observed that an elected member of a Village Panchayat who works as Gram Rojgar Sevak while on post, cannot be disqualified u/s 14(1) (f) or (g) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1958.
Case Title: Ganesh D Tapkir vs Baner Yethil Samasta Gramastha Mandal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
The Bombay High Court has held that recognition of the villagers' customary right to celebrate the Bagad festival on the suit property does not amount to a violation of the right to property of the landowners. The Court observed that the material on record prima facie indicated long and continuous exercise of such right by the villagers, and the orders of the Courts below granting protection to that right did not suffer from any perversity or illegality.
Case Title: Bhaskar Jagannath Gadekar vs The Deputy Collector
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
The Bombay High Court has held that it cannot remain a mute spectator when execution of its orders is kept pending for an indefinite period despite there being no subsisting restraint. The Court observed that a decree which remains unexecuted defeats the very purpose of justice, and delay in execution deprives the decree holder of the fruits of the litigation.
Case Title: MK Madhavan vs R Subramaniam
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
The Bombay High Court has held that an oral agreement for the sale of immovable property can be specifically enforced where its existence and terms are admitted and proved. The Court observed that while granting such relief, it can direct payment of an additional amount to balance equities between the parties in light of the passage of time and change in circumstances.
Case Title: Jitendra Ramnarayan Rathod vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 07) cleared the decks for a special court in the city to frame charges of murder and outraging religious sentiments against seven officers of the Mumbai Police, named in the 2014 custodial death case of Agnello Valdaris.
Case Title: Ashrappa Yellappa Bhandari vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
While holding that standing near the door in a moving local train or standing on the edge of the platform cannot be considered as 'negligence', the Bombay High Court recently called for inculcating 'civic sense' in Mumbaikars, especially those travelling in local trains just like that amongst the citizens of Japan.
Case Title: Mormugao Port Authority vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 166
The Bombay High Court at Goa recently ordered the removal of a Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj statue, which was installed in "gross violation" of local laws and constructed illegally on the land owned by the Mormugao Port Authority (MPA).
Case Title: National Egg Co-Ordination Committee vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act do not have jurisdiction to direct a change in the name of a trust. The Court observed that the statutory scheme of the Act does not contemplate any enquiry into the suitability of the name of a trust, and therefore, no such power can be exercised by the authorities.
Case Title: Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 168
The Bombay High Court has held that the delegation of the power to direct refund to an Adjudicating Officer is not contrary to the scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Court observed that while adjudication of compensation is exclusively within the domain of the Adjudicating Officer, other powers of the Authority, including directing a refund, can be delegated under Section 81 of the Act.
Case Title: Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
The Bombay High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a member of the Railway Protection Force can be initiated on the basis of material such as CCTV footage and a video clip, even in the absence of a formal complaint by the victim. The Court observed that non-filing of a complaint by the victim does not render the initiation of disciplinary inquiry without jurisdiction when the conduct is otherwise evident from material on record.
Case Title: Vasanti Satish Joshi vs Thane Municipal Transport Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 170
When Indians traveling abroad can follow the rules and regulations pertaining to traffic there, then why can't they follow the road rules here in India, the Bombay High Court recently questioned while disposing of a road accident compensation case, wherein a priest suffering from Parkinson died after being hit by a Thane Municipal Transport Corporation (TMTC) bus.
Case Title: Rahul Vinod Surushe vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 171
Two adolescents indulging in sexual relations, which results in the birth of a child, cannot be harassed by prosecuting them under the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, the Bombay High Court held while quashing a First Information Report (FIR).
Case Title: Vikram Vijay Bhutekar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 172
While noting the 'well designed' attempt on the part of an accused under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) 1999, to ensure the trial does not commence, the Bombay High Court recently emphasised on the need for the courts to distinguish between 'genuine' cases of 'long incarceration' and 'made up' cases, wherein the delay in a trial is attributable to an accused.
Case Title: HDFC Bank Limited vs Archana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 173
The Bombay High Court has held that an erroneous decision on the question of territorial jurisdiction operates as res judicata between the parties when the subsequent application is filed in the same proceedings and on the same cause of action. The Court observed that objections relating to territorial jurisdiction pertain to procedural aspects of jurisdiction and such orders, even if erroneous, remain binding unless set aside.
Case Title: M/s. Devi Construction LLP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
The Bombay High Court has held that no discrimination can be made between land owners based on the purpose for which their lands are acquired, particularly when they are deprived of possession prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings. The Court observed that the fact of deprivation of enjoyment of land is the relevant consideration and not the ultimate public purpose for which the land is utilised
Case Title: Subodh C Korde vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
The Bombay High Court recently while ordering the HDFC Bank to remit a total of Rs 38.04 lakhs to a Pune-based businessman, who lost the amount in a cyber fraud, noted that no liability could be fastened on the customer as the amounts were illegally transacted through SIM swapping/cloning mode.
Case Title: Abhijit Baswant Nigudkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
Unwanted staring at a female colleague's breast can be indecent conduct of the man or morally wrong but it cannot amount to the offence of voyeurism punishable under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as it mandates watching or recording a woman indulging into a private act and in a private place, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a FIR against a man.
Case Title: Pritam Harmalkar vs Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 177
The Bombay High Court has quashed the notification for the Ponda bye-election, observing that the expression “remainder of the term” under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act must be reckoned from the date of declaration of the result of the bye-election. The Court observed that if the remaining tenure from such date is less than one year, the statutory bar operates and a bye-election cannot be held.
Case Title: Rajesh Govardhan More vs Pramod Ratan Patil
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 178
The Bombay High Court has held that an election petition alleging discrepancies between EVM data and VVPAT slips is liable to be dismissed where it does not disclose material facts constituting a complete cause of action. The Court observed that mere assertions of discrepancies without pleading how such discrepancies materially affected the election result are insufficient under the statutory framework.
Case Title: The Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 179
Observing that a co-operative housing society is not a forum constituted for adjudicating title disputes, the Bombay High Court on Friday (April 18) ordered a suburban Malad based housing society to grant membership to a man, who was denied the same citing the existence of multiple legal heirs of his parents. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar upheld the order passed on November 13, 2014 by a Divisional Joint Registrar directing the Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited to grant membership to Radheshyam Dhanuka.
Case Title: Milind Anantrao Parad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 180
If a departmental enquiry, even if harsh or unpleasant is initiated against an employee, the same cannot amount to 'abetting' the person's suicide, the Bombay High Court held earlier this week, while discharging four employees of an Ashram School, booked for 'conspiring' to falsely implicate a fellow teacher of the school in a case leading to his suicide.
Case Title: Pravin Shyamrao Samarth vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 181
The Bombay High Court has said that recording a conference call between two officials of Maharashtra Metro Corporation Limited (MMCL) and then sharing the same with another official would not amount to 'spying' under Official Secrets Act (OSA) as the office of the MMCL would not amount to 'prohibited place' under the Act.
Case Title: Mangesh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182
The Bombay High Court has held that long incarceration alone does not entitle an accused to bail where the trial has already commenced and is in progress. The Court observed that precedents granting bail on the ground of delay are distinguishable where trial had not commenced, unlike the present case.
Case Title: Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs Vidyut Metallics Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
The Bombay High Court has held that a trade union cannot independently invoke Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP (Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, 1971) Act for the recovery of money without written authorisation from employees. The Court observed that the statutory scheme restricts the right of recovery to the employee or a person expressly authorised by him in writing.
Case Title: Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 184
The Bombay High Court has held that continued attachment of a bank account without complying with statutory requirements violates the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court observed that such coercive action, taken in breach of mandatory legal safeguards, results in serious civil consequences and cannot be sustained.
Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Suhas Shankar Pagare
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185
The Bombay High Court has held that mere absence of a Complaints Committee in the exact form contemplated under the Vishaka guidelines does not by itself vitiate a domestic inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct. The Court observed that the validity of such an inquiry depends on whether a fair procedure was followed and whether any real prejudice was caused to the employee.
Case Title: Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
The Bombay High Court has held that a landlord's inherited right to terminate tenancy for bona fide personal cultivation extinguishes upon the sale of the land. The Court observed that once the land is sold, the requirement of personal cultivation ceases to exist, defeating the basis of such a claim.
Case Title: Krishnakumar Ashar vs Archie John Varel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
The Bombay High Court has held that eviction proceedings cannot be continued against a tenant who has subsequently become a co-owner of the property. The Court observed that once a tenant acquires ownership rights in the premises, even to the extent of a share, his status changes and eviction proceedings cannot be pursued against him.
1993 Bombay Blasts Case: High Court Dismisses Abu Salem's Plea Seeking Premature Release
Case Title: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
The Bombay High Court today rejected the plea filed by underworld gangster and one of the prime convicts in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case, Abu Salem, who sought premature release arguing that he has already completed 25 years of imprisonment after counting the remissions and thus as per the treaty signed between the then Indian and the Portugal governments, he must now be released.
Case Title: Ejaj Urf Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
While upholding the conviction and life sentence imposed on a man by a Sessions Court in Thane for stabbing a friend to death just because he refused to give him a 'loan' of Rs 200, the Bombay High Court last month held that the said crime cannot be said to be a 'sudden quarrel' as the accused first pre-mediated the attack and then executed the same, killing the deceased.
Case Title: Rescue Foundation vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 191
A person trafficked to India can be repatriated to his or her original country based on a 'No Objection' granted by the respective trial court dealing with the said trafficking case, the Bombay High Court held on Wednesday (April 15), while ordering immediate repatriation of a Bangladeshi woman. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata said the court that has passed orders granting custody of the victim to the shelter homes, can pass repatriation orders in cases of adult victims, and that the said victims need not obtain any order from a Magistrate.
Case Title: DNS vs NNS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 192
The Bombay High Court has held that though a Family Court possesses sufficient powers to refer a spouse for medical examination to ascertain if s/he suffers from a mental disorder, it cannot 'casually' pass such orders without applying its mind. The High court quashed an order sending a woman for examination before a psychiatrist.
Case Title: Valencio D'Souza vs The Director, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 193
The Bombay High Court today (April 16) said that the legislation by brining in the Child Care Leave (CCL) policy has acknowledged the contribution of a woman to familial stability, her role in nurturing her children and thus, the Government must ensure that the policy is properly implemented to secure its objects. Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale said that by granting the CCL to women not only protects her own rights but also the rights of her children.
Case Title: Mast MPB vs Dr PMB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 194
Observing that the efforts of a mother single-handedly raising a child cannot be value in terms of money, the Bombay High Court recently held that even if the wife is earning but has the custody of the child, the husband will have to pay for the expenses of the child and cannot shirk off from his responsibility. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while enhancing the monthly maintenance to a child from Rs 15,000 to Rs 30,000, highlighted the efforts put in by a mother to raise a child alone, especially by working mothers.
Case Title: Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 195
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a doctor during the Covid-19 lockdown, who despite being infected by the virus failed to get himself admitted in a Covid Centre despite a clear order to him to come to the said facility for treatment. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke quashed the FIR lodged against Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar booked on a complaint filed by Dr. Vinayak Shankar Bhalerao, who was on an 108 Ambulance (emergency service). The Medical Superintendent of the Buldhana district has called Bhalerao to take help of the local police to bring in Zawar so that he can be admitted in the Covid Centre at Mehekar, Buldhana.
Case Title: Kartik Aryan vs Vinsm Globe Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
The Bombay High Court, while protecting the 'personality rights' of Bollywood actor Kartik Aryan, observed that the Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated content with regard to the actor is, prima facie, obscene and disparages his reputation and lowers his brand value. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, on April 15, passed an interim order protecting Aryan's personality rights and ordered various social media intermediaries to delete or pull down content which is unauthorised, objectionable and sexually explicit, as flagged by the actor in his plea.
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.
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.
Case Title: Jhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court has held that permissions obtained from a Municipal Corporation by misrepresentation or submission of incorrect material are void and cannot be sustained in law. The Court observed that fraud vitiates all actions, and a party cannot take advantage of permissions secured by misleading the authority. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation revoking development permission granted to the petitioners for the construction of a multi-storey building under Section 51 of the MRTP Act. The Corporation had also directed the removal of the construction.
Case Title: Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court has held that an industrial dispute is deemed to remain “pending” under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act until 30 days after publication of the award, even if the dispute is factually settled. The Court clarified that during this statutory period, compliance with Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory for dismissal of a workman.
Case Title: Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
The Bombay High Court has held that the State cannot retain stamp duty paid under a wrong head merely on the ground that the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court observed that procedural timelines cannot defeat a substantive right, particularly where the State would otherwise unjustly enrich itself.
Case Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which transfers the power to issue adoption orders from courts to District Magistrates. The Court held that the change in forum does not violate constitutional principles and is aimed at expediting the adoption process.
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust against Sashidhar Jagdishan over alleged bribery. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Nitin Borkar noted that the instant FIR was triggered out of "personal vendetta." It also noted that the HDFC Bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the Trust and thus, in a counterblast, the instant FIR was lodged against the bank's CEO.
Case Title: Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
The Bombay High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Competent Authority cannot look into documents other than the Leave and License Agreement in a summary inquiry for eviction of a licensee. The Court observed that the inquiry under Sections 24 and 43 of the Act is restricted to examining whether the license period has expired, and that contractual arrangements contained in separate documents cannot be enforced before the Competent Authority.
Case Title: Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Rahul Sudhindra Soni
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
The Bombay High Court has held that an employee who resigns in breach of a service bond cannot insist that the employer must issue a relieving letter or experience certificate. The Court observed that when resignation is tendered contrary to contractual obligations under a valid service bond, the employer is justified in not accepting the resignation and consequently cannot be compelled to issue relieving or service certificates.
Case Title: Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre vs Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court while dismissing a son's appeal challenging the order of a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, directing him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to his aged mother and also quashing the gift deed, by which the mother relinquished her rights in the ancestral property, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 for 'dragging' the senior citizen into a 'multi-layered' and 'protracted' litigation.
Case Title: Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) denied bail to a man booked in the murder case of former Maharashtra Minister Baba Siddiqui, who was shot to death in broad daylight on October 12, 2024 at Mumbai's plush Bandra area. At least three assailants had opened fire against Siddiqui, while he was about to enter his car after meeting his son Zeeshan in Bandra East. A total of six bullets were fired at him, some of which hit him in abdomen and chest, due to which, he died. It is alleged that the Lawrence Bishnoi gang has conspired to kill Siddiqui.
Case Title: Rubabuddin Shaikh vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
The Bombay High Court while upholding the acquittal of the 22 policemen from Gujarat and Rajasthan in the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulasiram Prajapati, held that the prosecution's story of a 'conspiracy' to kill the trio after abducting them was not established and that the case rested solely on 'circumstantial' evidence, which too was not proved.
Case Title: Yuvraj Santrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
The Bombay High Court recently observed that when the State is extending financial assistance under welfare schemes such as the Ladki Bahin Yojana, it cannot deny or delay financial aid to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection without reasonable classification or justification.
Case Title: Rama Gunda Malkapure vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution cannot be defeated on the basis of erroneous revenue entries made during the implementation of a consolidation scheme. The Court observed that where landholders were not issued notice as required under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, delay in seeking correction of revenue entries cannot be used to deny restoration of their holdings.
Case Title: Vaijenath Haridas Ambad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
The Bombay High Court has held that teachers seeking promotion must possess TET/CTET qualification on the date of initiation of the promotion process and that subsequent clearance of the examination cannot be applied retrospectively to claim inclusion in an ongoing promotion process. The Court observed that merely appearing for the TET/CTET examination during the pendency of the promotion process does not create any vested right to seek consideration for promotion.
Case Title: Rohit Bandu Nikalje vs The Regional Officer, UIDAI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
The Bombay High Court while taking note of the increasing cases where citizens are compelled to approach courts on account of biometric mismatch, deactivation or suspension of Aadhar Cards, issued detailed guidelines ordering the authorities to adopt a 'citizen-centric' approach in dealing with such cases and also to ensure the grievances are redressed within four weeks. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar observed that in several such cases, genuine residents are made to run from one office to the another, without any resolution, which results in unnecessary hardships.
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 246
Invoking the famous couplet - Zara Hatke Zara Bachke, Ye Hai Bombai Meri Jaan! the Bombay High Court on Friday ordered constitution of a Committee to look into the 'abysmal' progress of town planning in the city of Mumbai and the failure of proper implementation of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act of 1971. A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna in a detailed judgment, pointed out various flaws in the implementation of the Slums Act and also the failures of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) along wit the Maharashtra Government and its bodies, in ensuring a 'slum-free' Mumbai even after 55 years of enacting the then ad-hoc Slums Act.
Case Title: Santosh Hiraman Lashkare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
In what could impact thousands of public servants in various departments across Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has upheld the powers of the State Government to order 're-assessment' and 'verification' of the medical certificates and the Unique Disability ID (UDID) cards. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri has held that obtaining a government job on the basis of a bogus UDID card, would amount to an 'immoral act' and such an employee can be removed from service on the ground of 'moral turpitude.'
Case Title: D S Textiles vs IIFL Finance Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
The Bombay High Court recently flagged the disturbing trend in arbitration matters, wherein non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) resort to appointing 'unilateral' arbitrators through 'institution' or 'algorithm-based' selection, which the court held to be illegal and against the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan in an order passed on April 30, noted that the IIFL had unilaterally appointed an arbitrator, a decision which was challenged before the court. The judge said that the NBFCs think that appointing an arbitrator unilaterally through an institution etc, would 'clean' the illegality.
Case Title: Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
The Bombay High Court has held that the Mediation Act, 2023, does not empower courts to compel parties to undergo mediation without their mutual consent. The Court clarified that mediation under the statutory framework is consensual in nature and cannot be imposed unilaterally.
Case Title: Maniar Ramesh Kumar vs CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
The Bombay High Court, while upholding the acquittal of 22 policemen from the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulasiram Prajapati, also dismissed an interim application which sought to challenge the discharge of Union Home Minister and BJP leader Amit Shah from the said case.
Case Title: Kamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court earlier this week, refused to stay the operation of the tenders floated for the integrated cluster development of more than 5,000 housing societies in the plush Bandra Reclamation and Worli areas in Mumbai. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Shriram Modak said that it would be hearing the matter finally and therefore, refused to stay the tenders, which were floated on April 7 and the bids likely to be opened on May 20.
Case Title: Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (May 13) disposed of as withdrawn a petition which sought stay on the May 16 high stakes board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), after expressing displeasure over the 'conduct' of the petitioner. A vacation court presided over by the division bench of Justice Advait Sethna and Justice Sandesh Patil was 'shocked' to note that the petitioner Suresh Patilkhede, who sought a stay on the meeting on the ground that some representations have already been made against the formation of the SRTT board of directors, was not the one who had filed the representation before the Charity Commissioner and rather the said representations were made by some other third party.
Case Title: Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on tenants seeking impleadment of a new developer in redevelopment proceedings despite the absence of any privity of contract between the developer and the landlords. The Court observed that the application was “nothing else but an elite form of coercion and extortion” and amounted to abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254
The Bombay High Court has observed that when there are allegations regarding the fabrication of orders of the High Court, the Court cannot remain a “mute spectator” to a casual or predetermined investigation. The Court observed that where prima facie material indicates fabrication of court orders, the investigating agency is expected to conduct a serious and fair investigation aimed at identifying the real culprit.
Case Title: Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255
The Bombay High Court has held that merely taking away a seized tractor from police custody does not by itself make a person a “sand smuggler” within the meaning of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The Court observed that unless the statutory ingredients relating to unauthorised extraction, transportation, storage or related activities concerning sand are satisfied, preventive detention under the MPDA Act cannot be sustained.
Case Title: The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a fresh auction is not mandatory for the disposal of inventoried mining dumps created pursuant to mining operations carried out under an approved mining plan. The Court observed that where such dumps are depicted in the approved mining plan, and statutory dues including conversion fees and penalties have been paid, the State Government is entitled to permit erstwhile leaseholders to remove the dumps without conducting a fresh auction.
Case Title: Geeta Kampani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 257
The Bombay High Court has held that police cannot freeze or seize bank accounts under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without establishing a direct nexus between the seized property and the alleged offence. The Court observed that imposing an onerous condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the frozen amount while directing de-freezing of accounts frustrates the very object of such de-freezing.
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 258
If citizens are compelled to stand on road without proper shelter or seating, to wait for public transport like bus services, even during extreme weather conditions, the same violates their right to dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution of India, held the Bombay High Court while ordering the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) for providing proper bus stop infrastructure in the city and also basic amenities to the citizens.
Case Title: Aditi Sanjaysingh Bais vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) in a writ petition challenging the retrospective application of the mandatory three-year practice requirement prescribed for the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) examination.
Case Title: Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
The Bombay High Court at Goa has upheld the constitutional validity of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings (Amendment) Acts of 2022 and 2023, which altered the order of legal succession by placing the surviving spouse above ascendants in cases of intestate succession. The Court observed that according precedence to the surviving spouse over parents or other ascendants cannot be termed manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional merely because the legislature chose to alter the existing order of succession.
Case Title: Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
The Bombay High Court recently criticised the Maharashtra Government for on one hand insisting to give importance to Marathi language and on the other hand attempting to shut down Marathi medium schools by issuing two Government Resolutions (GRs) on April 1 and April 2 this year, permanently disqualifying several unaided primary and secondary schools from receiving grant-in-aid.
Case Title: KBC vs BSC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
Wives are not 'deemed maids' and thus, their failure to perform domestic chores such as cooking, cleaning etc does not amount to cruelty, held the Bombay High Court recently. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande quashed and set aside a judgment of the Family Court in Mumbai, which on July 23, 2010 granted divorce to a Chartered Accountant man, on grounds of cruelty.
Case Title: HRBK vs LRRK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
The Bombay High Court recently while dealing with case pertaining to the payment of monthly maintenance to a wife, took judicial note of the rising unemployment and observed that even the highly educated persons are jobless and thus, even if a woman is highly educated she cannot be denied maintenance. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke while dismissing a husband's argument that his wife has studied upto post graduation and is an able-bodied person and thus, can maintain herself.
Case Title: Mayur Sakharam Sawant vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
The Bombay High Court recently held that in cases of public recruitment processes, wherein large number of candidates apply for jobs, courts cannot casually interfere at any stage of the process and order reopening of a particular process especially on vague and unsubstantiated pleas made by any candidate. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar refused to grant any relief to one Mayur Sawant (31), who had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Social Service Superintendent (Medical) and cleared the examinations for the same which were held in September 2025.
Case Title: Vinodkumar Chellappan Pillai vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 265
The Bombay High Court has struck down the portion of Rule 14(1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, which mandated that a prisoner could become eligible for regular parole only after completion of one year of actual imprisonment. The Court held that the condition was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Shekhar Kakasaheb Jagtap vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (May 20) quashed the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against Sanjay Pandey— the former Commissioner of Mumbai Police who also served as the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra, and a lawyer— who were accused of deliberately re-opening a criminal case against a businessman and forcing him to give certain statements against Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and his Deputy Eknath Shinde.
Bombay High Court Stays Deployment Of Private Unaided, Minority School Teachers For Census Duties
Case Title: Unaided Schools Forum vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 267
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 22) granted an interim stay on deploying the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private unaided and private unaided minority schools for the decennial census operations across Maharashtra. A vacation court presided over by a division bench of Justice Gautam Ankhad and Justice Sandesh Patil while granting interim relief to thousands of staff working in over more than 500 private unaided and private unaided minority schools across Maharashtra, prima facie, held that there was no 'express' obligation on the staff of such schools to be requisitioned for census work.
Case Title: Mumbai Press Club vs Gurbir Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 268
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 22) stayed a trial court order which had halted the expulsion of senior journalist Gurbir Singh from the Mumbai Press Club (MPC), for allegedly holding an event attended by eight accused named in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case. In doing so, the High Court held that the trial court, in the interim order, had not disclosed its reasons for granting sweeping ad-interim reliefs and "virtually granted the substantive final reliefs".
Case Title: Pradeep Rambhau Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 269
The Bombay High Court recently granted 25 days parole to a man convicted under the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, for constructing a new house, after his previous home was demolished by the Maharashtra Government following acquisition of the land parcel (on which his house stood) for the Navi Mumbai International Airport. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that the convict Pradeep Gaikwad has already spent more than nine years in jail and also that despite his house being demolished, he was yet to get the compensation from the State.
Case Title: MKJ vs LMJ
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
Torture or ill-treatment of the wife in her husband's house, or even when a wife cannot reasonably hope that she can live with dignity at her husband's house are some sufficient grounds for a wife to refuse to live with her husband and seek maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Bombay High Court held recently.
Case Title: N vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that parents of a husband or his relatives, cannot be booked under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) just because they choose to remain quiet, refrain from taking sides or be a 'passive spectator' in a crossfire of allegations between the husband and the wife.
Case Title: Unilever Plc vs Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 29) expressed its displeasure over the assault of a court-appointed receiver and the representatives of the Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), who visited Ambala in Haryana for executing a court order for seizing large quantity of counterfeit products.
Case Title: Abhijeet Arun Gade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 273
The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man, who allegedly raped a young woman from October 2024 til April this year, under the pretext of soon offering her a role in a film. The High Court noted that the man, who had 'ill intentions' since beginning, had made the woman's private photos, viral and had "misused her trust".
Case Title: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust vs HDFC Bank Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 274
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 9) refused to pass an interim injunction against HDFC Bank and it's CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan to restrain them from making any statements against the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust or its Trustees Prashant or Charu Mehta. The court has also imposed a hefty cost of Rs 5 lakh on the Trust be paid to HDFC Bank within six weeks.
Case Title: Lt. Col. Retd. Jaigopal Nagarajan vs Vasudev Mariwala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 275
The Bombay High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question whether the Revisional Authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has the power to condone delay in a revision application filed by a landlord beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The Court observed that the issue assumes significance particularly in cases involving special categories of landlords, such as members of the armed forces, for whose benefit the special summary procedure under the Act was enacted.
Case Title: Noorjan Samshuddin Bhanvadiya vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 276
The Bombay High Court has held the State of Maharashtra liable to pay compensation for the death of a patient who was killed by a violent inmate while undergoing treatment at the Yerwada Mental Hospital. The Court observed that the State failed in its duty to ensure the safety of patients in its custody.
Case Title: Swapnil Chandrakant Kashikar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 277
The Bombay High Court has held that the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and a person having serious criminal antecedents cannot be granted bail solely on the ground of long incarceration.
Case Title: Anil Dhirajlal Ambani vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 278
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 8) directed the Income Tax Department not to take any coercive action against industrialist and Reliance Group owner Anil Ambani under the provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 with regard to the alleged tax evasion of Rs 420 crore.
Case Title: Rajan Bhagwandas Sujanani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 279
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 9) refused to quash a Chargesheet under MCOCA filed against two developers accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy with gangster Ravi Pujari for threatening a fellow developer and extorting money from him over a pending litigation regarding a land parcel in city's posh Powai area.
Case Title: Nandakumar Sukumar Panicker vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 280
A First Information Report (FIR) registered in sexual offences, cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay as the victim takes time to muster courage to lodge the complaint fearing the social stigma and also the 'uncomfortable' questions that she would be subjected to, held the Bombay High Court recently while quashing a section 354 (outraging modesty) case against a man, who molested a house help.
Bombay High Court Upholds De-Affiliation Of Sharad Pawar-Led State Wrestling Association From WFI
Case Title: Maharashtra Wrestling Association vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 15) upheld the de-affiliation of the NCP(SP) chief Sharad Pawar led Maharashtra State Wrestling Association (MSWA) from the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI). The WFI had on January 1, 2023 decided to de-affiliate the MSWA and replaced it with the Maharashtra Rajya Kustigir Sangh (MRKS).
Case Title: Ramesh Bhaskar Utturkar vs Unmesh Trimbak Naravane
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, is wide enough to cover a suit for re-possession filed by a tenant seeking restoration of possession from the landlord. The Court observed that where the relationship of landlord and tenant continues to subsist, a tenant seeking return of possession of the tenanted premises must approach the Small Causes Court, which alone has jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute.
Case Title: Mahendra Dharmaji Papal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
The Bombay High Court has held that a conviction for a forest offence is not a pre-condition for confiscation of a vehicle under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable in Maharashtra. The Court observed that the statutory scheme under Sections 61-A to 61-G empowers the authorised officer to confiscate forest produce and vehicles used in the commission of a forest offence, notwithstanding whether or not a prosecution has been instituted.
Case Title: Warsha @ Eleekusumchand Javeri vs Rajan Suren Goregaonkar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that a divorced woman though can continue to seek maintenance based on a decree, from the husband's estate or properties even after his death, however, she cannot seek enhancement of the same maintenance from the said estate after his death. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 284]
Case Title: Jeetendra Krishna Varma vs Director General of Civil Aviation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
The Bombay High Court has held that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) cannot suspend a pilot's licence without issuing a show-cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing merely because an FIR has been registered or allegations of forged documents have surfaced.
Case Title: Bagasarwala Property LLP vs The Joint Charity Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
The Bombay High Court has held that revocation of a sanction granted under Section 36(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act can be ordered under Section 36(2) only upon proof that the sanction was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of material facts. The Court observed that the jurisdiction under Section 36(2) is not appellate in nature and does not permit the Charity Commissioner to undertake a fresh assessment of the transaction or reconsider the correctness of the original sanction merely because another view may be possible on the same material.
Case Title: Madhavi Vilas Gosavi vs Rajesh Mishra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
The Bombay High Court has held that while computing the two-thirds majority required for passing a no-confidence motion against an officer of a co-operative housing society, the fractional figure cannot be ignored. The Court observed that since removal through a no-confidence motion carries serious consequences and stigma, the provisions governing such removal must be strictly construed.
Case Title: Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties, Bombay vs Katty J. Mistry
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
The Bombay High Court has held that an heir of a deceased tenant is not required to have been residing with the tenant at the time of death to inherit tenancy under Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The Court observed that where no family member was residing with the deceased tenant at the time of death, any heir of the deceased tenant can be recognized as a tenant, and the statute does not impose a condition that such heir must have been residing with the tenant.
Case Title: M/s. M.P. Homes vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
The Bombay High Court has held that lands classified as Tenure “D” under Rule 43 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921, i.e., lands granted in perpetuity, are freely transferable and fall within the category of Class-I occupancies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Consequently, the State cannot levy a transfer premium or insist upon prior permission for its transfer.
Case Title: Siddesh Pradeep Satpute vs State Bank of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
An alleged act of sexual harassment if occurring in a mode of transport not provided by the employer of either the accused or the victim, cannot be entertained under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act), held the Bombay High Court.
Bombay High Court Restores Dismissal Of Employee For Vulgar Remarks Against Koli Women
Case Title: Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. vs Nitin Jaywant Mhatre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
The Bombay High Court has upheld the dismissal of a man from his service, on the ground that he used filthy language against his employer and also the fisher women while he was tasked for driving the Koli community women and transporting their fish to market on a daily basis.
Case Title: Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs Smita Virendra Patil
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
An employee after facing a 'routine' transfer, if complaints to the Police and brings policemen in the office premises to harass the employer is a misconduct, held the Bombay High Court recently. Further, the act of an employee making serious allegations about the employer to various authorities, both related and unrelated, on being transferred, too would amount to a misconduct, it added.
Case Title: Manoj Balasaheb Dhanavade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
The Bombay High Court recently, while quashing a rape FIR, ordered the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to circulate the details of the complainant woman to all the police stations across the State so that the police exercises caution in future on receiving any complaint from the said woman as she is "habitual" in filing false rape, domestic violence and cruelty cases.
Case Title: Shyam Vasant Kale vs The Assistant Charity Commissioner-II, Nagpur
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
The Bombay High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, is limited to issuing directions for the proper administration of a public trust and does not extend to interfering with an ongoing election process. The Court observed that once the election process has commenced, the Assistant Charity Commissioner cannot invoke Section 41A to quash an election notice or halt the election on the ground that the legality of the existing Managing Committee is under doubt.
Case Title: Jervis Fernandes vs Rumaldo Judas Agnelo Fernandes
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
The Bombay High Court has held that the power to remove a Municipal Councillor under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, vests exclusively in the Government and cannot be exercised by the Director of Municipal Administration. The Court observed that the power under Section 44 is quasi-judicial in nature, as it entails adjudication of allegations of misconduct or disgraceful conduct and may result in removal from office and disqualification for five years.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 22) permitted a married woman to terminate her 26-weeks pregnancy after noting that the woman hailed from the lower strata of the society and that her foetus suffered from severe anomalies, which would require post-delivery cardiac surgeries that she can't afford.
Case Title: Manas Sandip Sathe vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
Dismissing a petition seeking admission in a school under the 'neighbourhood' reservation provided under the Right To Education (RTE) Act, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 25) held that residential requirement is not an empty formality but is an essential eligibility criteria for admissions under the said quota, which provides admission of people from the weaker section and lower strata of the society in nearby private unaided schools.
Case Title: Suraj Deepak Mane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge to the recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge by nomination in the Maharashtra Judicial Service. The Court held that candidates who participated in the selection process with full knowledge that it would be governed by the amendments approved by the High Court, though not formally notified on the date of the advertisement, could not challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examination.
Case Title: BK Corporation vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 299
The Bombay High Court has held that where an earlier order rejecting a deemed conveyance application has attained finality, a second application seeking the same relief would be barred by principles of res judicata and finality of proceedings. The Court observed that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act does not possess any inherent power of review and cannot reopen or reconsider an issue already decided unless such power is expressly conferred by statute.
Case Title: Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300
The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an extortion FIR lodged against a Pune-based woman who entered into a second marriage while her first marriage was subsisting, and demanded alimony from the second husband by misusing the law. Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale in an order pronounced on June 10, noted that the Petitioner performed her second marriage in September 2015 when her first marriage continued to subsist.
Case Title: ANG vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
The act of a husband chatting or speaking to his sister-in-law (bhabhi) and engraving her son's name on his own hand cannot be brought under the ambit of section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty towards a spouse, held the Bombay High Court. It quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man's sister-in-law, with whom, his wife alleged he had an 'extra-marital' affair.
Case Title: Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
The Bombay High Court recently held that the arrest of a person after the filing of chargesheet against already arrested co-accused is not illegal merely because the arrested person was not provided with a copy of the chargesheet along with the grounds of arrest.
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.
In what could spell trouble for industrialist Anil Ambani, three banks - Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank and the IDBI Bank have moved the Bombay High Court challenging the order of a single-judge, who had stayed fraud classification proceedings initiated by the three banks, against the founder and chairman of the Reliance Group, after prima facie finding 'serious defects' in the forensic audit relied upon by the said banks.
The Maharashtra Government informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (January 13) that it has agreed to grant 2 days emergency parole to gangster and convict in 1993 Mumbai Blasts Case Abu Salem to meet his family. The State government however said that it has asked Salem to pay the escort charges adding that he cannot be released without an escort party since he is an "international criminal."
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant an ad-interim relief to former Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Eknath Khadse, who sought a stay on the proceedings pending before a Special Court to frame charges against him, his wife Mandakini Khadse and son-in-law Girish Chaudhari in a 2016 land deal.
Punching holes in the forensic audit report, relied by the consortium of banks to declare his loan accounts as 'fraud', industrialist Anil Ambani on Friday told the Bombay High Court that the auditor, who carried out the exercise to prepare a report was 'incompetent' and has given an 'inconclusive' finding.
Amid major political drama among the newly elected members of the Ambernath Municipal Council (AMC) in Thane city, with the arch rivals Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Congress joining hands to sideline Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde Faction), the Bombay High Court on Saturday halted for the time being, the formation of various Subject Committees such as the Public Health Committee, Public Works Committee, Education Committee etc till Monday.
The Bombay High Court on Monday criticised the Maratha Community protestors who had brought the city of Mumbai to a standstill in September 2025, for 'littering' the roads of the city and overstaying on the streets while demanding reservation for the community.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 22) issued notice to Maharashtra Government on a plea by YouTuber and United Kingdom (UK) based doctor Sangram Patil, booked for allegedly making 'objectionable' social media posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
Sharply criticising the Maharashtra Government for its failure to arrest Cabinet Minister Bharat Gogawale's son Vikas, who was booked in a rioting case regarding civic polls in Mahad, Raigad district, last month, on Thursday, the Bombay High Court remarked if Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis is 'so helpless' that he is unable to do anything in this case wherein the son of his own sitting minister is said to be 'absconding' but is in constant touch with the father.
Day After Bombay High Court Raps Maharashtra Govt, Minister's Son Surrenders In Mahad Rioting Case
A day after Bombay High Court came down heavily on the Maharashtra Government for its failure to arrest Cabinet Minister Bharat Gogawale's son Vikas, booked in a rioting case during civic polls in Mahad, Raigad, today the court was informed that Vikas and other accused in the case have surrendered before the local police.
The Bombay High Court on Friday criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) for the failure to bring down the rising levels of air pollution in Mumbai and neighbouring areas and therefore indicated that it may on the next date, pass 'coercive' orders of stopping the salaries of the Commissioners of both Mumbai and Navi Mumbai.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (January 27) orally expressed reluctance to monitor the efforts taken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and other authorities in bringing down the rising levels of air pollution in Mumbai and its neighbouring areas, stating that it cannot sit in the court and check if the compliances are made.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday told underworld gangster Abu Salem that if he wanted to avail emergency parole leaves to visit his native place in Uttar Pradesh's Azamgarh area in view of his brother's death, he will have to pay for the police escort party, which would accompany him.
The Bombay High Court last week ordered the Maharashtra Government to deposit an amount of Rs 3.60 crores with the Court towards the non-payment of compensation to victims of human right violations, as ordered by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC). A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad ordered the State to deposit the amount with the Court and also ordered the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to appoint a Nodal Officer who can ensure that payments can be made to the victims.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it was not inclined to permit underworld gangster Abu Salem to visit his native place in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, to mourn the death of his brother Abu Hakim Ansari, by availing emergency parole for four days, since the 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts convict has claimed that he cannot pay ₹17.60 lakh towards police escort party charges.
The Mumbai Police told the Bombay High Court that the criminal action against YouTuber and UK-based doctor Sangram Patil is not 'arbitrary' but it is only to 'safeguard' India's image and also the dignity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the international forum and also to protect national integrity.
Satirist Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court 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. The challenge is directed against provisions which enable the blocking of content posted on social media intermediaries. Earlier, the Karnataka High Court, in a challenge by 'X Corp', had held that the Sahyog portal is not an instrument for censorship, but ensures cooperation between social media intermediaries and government agencies.
The Bombay High Court has sought from its Administration a 'blue print' for recruitment of nearly 2800 judicial officers against the newly sanctioned posts by the Maharashtra Government for the State's lower judiciary. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Sarang Kotwal emphasised that the State as well as the High Court on the Administrative side will have to act 'expeditiously' to aim its goal of 'speedy justice' for the citizens.
In a development in the criminal proceedings initiated against YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil for allegedly posting 'obscene and defamatory' posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the UK-based doctor has 'categorically' told the Bombay High Court that he has not made any post against the PM and that the Mumbai Police is only trying to 'criminalise' political speech.
While observing that despite publicity of the popular slogan 'Clean Nagpur, Beautiful Nagpur', the slogans remains only on the papers and the reality of the city can be seen on its streets, which are littered, the Bombay High Court recently took suo motu cognisance of the issue of 'cleanliness' in the city. A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode took suo motu cognisance of news articles published in two leading Marathi newspapers, which highlighted the issue of garbage lying open at various streets of Nagpur.
While pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over its failure to act against illegal encroachers on public roads, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that if such an approach of the civic body continues, then in the coming decade, people will switch to bicycles and horses and even the civic chief would ride a horse to reach his office.
Wondering if the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials were playing 'Tom & Jerry' with encroachers in the city's plush Hiranandani area in Powai, the Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned if the civic body has become 'powerless' and has 'surrendered' the city to encroachers as it appeared only to be protecting 'sentiments and religious rights.'
“Return To India Or We Won't Hear Your Challenge Against FEO Act”: Bombay High Court To Vijay Mallya
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted a last chance to former liquor baron Vijay Mallya to spell out when he plans to return to India so that his plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Fugitive Economic Offenders (FEO) Act. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that it had in a previous hearing it was made clear to Mallya to file an affidavit stating when he proposed to return to India and submit to the jurisdiction of the court. However, when the matter was called out on Thursday morning, it was informed that such an affidavit was not filed by Mallya yet.
The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and also the Maharashtra Government to file their affidavits in response to a plea filed by former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, who has sought a temporary stay on the framing of charges in the money laundering case lodged against him. Deshmukh, who petitioned a single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin Bhobe has urged the court to issue a directive to a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to first consider dealing with the case lodged against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on allegations of corruption, which is the 'predicate offence.'
Bollywood actor Shatrughan Sinha has moved the Bombay High Court seeking to protect his 'personality rights' citing the unauthorised use of his name, image, and especially his iconic dialogue "Khamosh." Sinha's suit was heard by single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh on Monday and was reserved for ad-interim orders.
A writ petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Government to scrap the 5% reservation in education to Muslim community. The petition filed by advocate Ejaz Naqvi challenges the February 17 Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra Government which withdraws a 2014 Ordinance. This ordinance had provided 5% reservation to 50 castes of the Muslim community, for education.
The Bombay High Court on Friday directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to make a statement by next week spelling out if it will consider purely on 'humanitarian' grounds, to permit the autorickshaw, taxi, Ola-Uber drivers and even passengers to offer Namaz at a temporary shed in the vicinity of the Domestic Terminal of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), at least for the ongoing holy month of Ramadan.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking quashing of a criminal defamation complaint over his alleged remarks describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”. Justice Nitin Borkar, after hearing detailed submissions from all sides, directed that the matter be reserved for judgment and ordered that the interim relief earlier granted to Gandhi would continue.
The Maharashtra Government on Thursday informed the Bombay High Court that it cannot permit Autorickshaw-Taxi and Ola-Uber cab drivers to offer Namaz at a temporary shed in the vicinity of the Domestic Terminal of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), even for the ongoing holy month of Ramadan, due to 'security' reasons. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla however, asked the State as well as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to identify a site in the vicinity so that the drivers and also the passengers, can offer Namaz at least for the ongoing month of Ramadan.
An advocate has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking structural safety assessment of all the construction sites of various lines of Mumbai Metro after the tragic accident took place in the city wherein one man lost his life and three were seriously injured after a portion of the slab of an under-construction of Metro Line 4B fell on an autorickshaw and a private car.
Bombay High Court Judge Duped Of Rs 6 Lakhs In Online Credit Card Fraud
A sitting Bombay High Court judge last week, filed a complaint with the Mumbai Police alleging that she has been duped in an online credit card fraud to the tune of Rs 6 lakhs. The female judge, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against an unknown person, who claimed to be a representative of the HDFC Bank's credit card department and defrauded her of Rs 6 lakhs.
The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench on Thursday issued notices to the Union government, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Confidence Petroleum India Limited on a petition filed by six LPG distributors alleging inadequate supply of domestic cooking gas cylinders.
The Bombay High Court recently sought an explanation from the Mumbai Sessions Court as to why, despite a clear order to record the statements of a Bangladeshi woman, a victim of immoral trafficking, was not recorded till date as she has to be repatriated to her country and is presently being looked after by an NGO in India.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday closed a petition highlighting the shortage of LPG cylinders for local consumers, after the Central Government assured that it is taking all possible steps both internationally and domestically to ensure there is no hardship to citizens.
The Bombay High Court on Monday permitted UK-based Doctor and YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil to file an affidavit assuring that even if he is allowed to return to United Kingdom, he will continue co-operating with the ongoing investigations against him for his allegedly defamatory social media post against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
While hearing petitions challenging the Maharashtra Government's decision to appoint outgoing Sarpanchs of over 14,500 Gram Panchayats as Administrators of their respective Gram Panchayats, the Bombay High Court recently restrained such Administrators from taking any major decisions particularly with respect to expenditures or policies etc, till further orders.
Observing that the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) has forced a 'competition' between a Mercedes owner and a bicycle owner, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed the allotment of nearly 25,000 flats constructed by CIDCO in Navi Mumbai under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana (Urban) (PMAYU-2.0) scheme, which were meant for the Lower Income Group (LIG) in 2024.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday sought to know from the Maharashtra Government if it could permit Surendra Gadling, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, to access the computer installed in the Taloja Central Prison to review the evidence against him.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday observed that when the Maharashtra Government is able to spend crores on schemes like 'Ladki Bahin', but malnutrition continues to cause deaths among children, pregnant women and others in tribal regions like Melghat, the State must explain its conduct.
The Bombay High Court is set to decide whether women above 50-years of age can be held to be 'medically fit' to bear a child and give birth with the help of Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART). A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri heard two petitions filed by women - a 55-year-old and a 53-year-old - both challenging the validity of the Section 21 (g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021.
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a defamation suit filed by Aditya Dhar, director of the recently released Bollywood film Dhurandhar, against Filmmaker Santosh Kumar, who in a Press Conference had claimed that the script of the film in question was 'copied' from his original work titled as 'D Saheb.' Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor, disposed of the suit on April 30, after Kumar tendered an apology for whatever he stated in the Press Conference against Dhar.
Observing that 'life comes once' and 'money will come and go', the Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered immediate release of 50 seafarers - all Indian nationals, who were stranded on three vessels near the Mumbai Coast since February 9, surviving on limited food stocks and 300 ml water per day. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar ordered immediate release of the 50 seafarers who were stranded on MT Asphalt Star, MT Stellar Ruby and MT Al Jafzia, which were arrested by the Yellow Gate Police Station in Mumbai, for alleged illegal fuel oil and bitumen transfers.
Questioning the "loud" celebrations of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar's birth anniversary in Nagpur, the Bombay High Court recently said that the great philosopher would have preferred a celebration more focused on intellectual growth, social reforms, and empowerment of the downtrodden than using loud music. A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that on the eve of celebrations of Dr Ambedkar's brith anniversary at 'Samvidhan Square'— there was loud noise; slogans; and bursting of firecrackers, which the Amicus Curiae said violates the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the Rights of General Public guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (May 5) asked Maharashtra Government to modify the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against UK-based Doctor & YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil–booked for making 'objectionable' posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi – so that he can fly back to his home country by Monday. Patil is booked in a FIR for allegedly posting defamatory posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Tuesday told the Bombay High Court that the Bangladeshi nationals, who have entered India illegally, have no business here and cannot be permitted to indulge into hawking activites and would be removed soon. The BMC through senior advocate Anil Singh along with Advocate Chaitanya Chavan told a division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata that the civic body would require some time but it will surely remove the illegal Bangladeshi hawkers, if any.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted five weeks time to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to issue 'Quick Response' (QR) Code generated Identity Cards (ID) to the 99,435 'surveyed' hawkers, so that any person beyond this list, especially Bangladeshi nationals, if found hawking, can be evicted. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata also directed the BMC to come up with some mechanism wherein people or the fellow hawkers can flag persons, especially Bangladeshi nationals, if found hawking in their local areas.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (May 7) dismissed the appeals filed by the family members of the victims in the alleged "fake" encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and associate Tulsiram Prajapati. The family had challenged the acquittal of the 22 Policemen from Gujarat, who were named in the case. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad pronounced the order in open court.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (May 8) orally remarked that it hopes that the dispute between industrialist Anil Ambani and Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami over allegedly objectionable reporting on the former can be settled amicably. The court further asked the channel to consider the allegedly objectionable content flagged by Ambani.
The Bombay High Court recently rapped the Mumbai Police for its "thoughtless" affidavit justifying it's "inaction" over the sudden demolition of the printing press set up by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar at a plot in Dadar, way back in 1945. The property was demolished in the wee hours of June 25, 2016 after a crowd of 400 to 500 persons thronged the site. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata passed an order on April 30, directing the police authorities to explain why no action was taken on a complaint filed by Ambedkar's grandson on June 25, 2016 when the printing press known as Buddha Bhushan Printing Press, was being demolished in the midnight after 400 to 500 persons gathered the spot.
The ongoing controversy over Sudha Bharadwaj and Varavara Rao - both accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, who allegedly flouted their bail conditions and together attended an event organised by journalist Gurbir Singh at the Mumbai Press Club (MPC), reached the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (May 19) with Justice Sandesh Patil recusing from hearing the matter. Notably, one of the bail conditions imposed by the special court on all the 15 accused in the case is that they will not interact with each other, however, Bharadwaj and Rao together attended Singh's event at the MPC on January 19, 2026, which was allegedly for discussing the legal and other issues concerning the case.
Bombay High Court Considers Framing Interim Guidelines For Protection Of Advocates From Violence
The Bombay High Court has considered framing interim guidelines for the protection of advocates from violence, harassment, coercion and criminal intimidation till appropriate legislation on the subject is enacted. The Court observed that the issue raised in the public interest litigation was of considerable importance and concerned assaults on advocates affecting the administration of justice.
Justice Ravindra Ghuge Appointed As Acting Chief Justice Of Bombay High Court
The Central Government on Monday (June 1) notified the appointment of Justice Ravindra Ghuge as the Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. This comes after the HC's Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was elevated to the Supreme Court.
Retired Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel and his family have allegedly been subjected to threats and acts of violence across India and the United Kingdom for nearly ten months in connection with his 2024 judgment deciding the long-running Dawoodi Bohra succession dispute, according to a report published by the Hindustan Times.
Bombay Bar Association Condemns Threats & Attacks On Justice Gautam Patel's Family Over Judgment
Condemning the threats issued to former Bombay High Court judge Justice (retd) Gautam Patel and his family, the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has called for thorough investigation of the incident and has urged the Ministry of External Affairs to ensure the safety of the judge's family members living in England.
Six Additional Judges Sworn-In As Permanent Judges Of Bombay High Court
Six Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court were sworn-in on Tuesday (June 9) as Permanent Judges of the High Court after the Central Government last week notified their permanent appointments. Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge administered the oath of office to the judges sitting at the Principal Seat while Justice Anil Kilor, the Administrative Judge at the Nagpur bench administered oath of office to the judges sitting at Nagpur.
Threats Against Justice Gautam Patel's Family : Bar Bodies File PIL In High Court Seeking SIT Probe
Days after condemning the threats and attacks on the family members of former Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Patel over his judgment deciding the spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra Community, the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) has filed a PIL seeking court's intervention and directions for safety of the judge and his family.
Days after the news pertaining to the dire threats being issued to Bombay High Court's former judge Justice Gautam Patel and his family members and the attack on his daughter in London, the family has been provided with security and protection by the Hertfordshire Constabulary.
"Just because one has access to social media does not mean they can upload videos about any person, whether a common citizen or a celebrity, merely to defame them," the Bombay High Court remarked on Thursday (June 11), while directing Ketan Kakkad, a neighbour of Bollywood actor Salman Khan's Panvel farmhouse, to consider deleting tweets and videos posted by him, or containing statements made by him, concerning the ongoing dispute between the two over their properties.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (June 12) issued notice on petition by 85-year-old Telugu Poet P Varavara Rao, accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Bhima Koregaon case, seeking permission to move to Hyderabad stating that living in Mumbai is not affordable for him. Rao, has challenged a March 16 order passed by a special NIA Court, which dismissed his application to reside in Hyderabad.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 11) expressed that it was not prima facie inclined to allow Janhavi Gadkar, the corporate lawyer booked in the high-profile drunk driving case, to sell her Audi Q5 car, which had collided with a taxi on the Eastern Freeway and killed two persons in June 2015. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar, said that permitting to sell the vehicle in question would amount to 'destruction' of primary evidence in the case.
The Bombay High Court has upheld an interim order restraining Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. from using the title "The New Indian Express" outside the southern states for which it was granted rights. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said there was no "perversity" in the order passed by the single-judge holding that prima facie the trademark "Indian Express" is exclusively owned by The Indian Express (P) Ltd.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 15) directed the Maharashtra Government to ensure protection is granted to former high court judge Justice Gautam Patel, who has been facing threats over a 2024 judgment he delivered with regards to the spiritual head of the Dawoodi Bohra community.
ILS Law College and the Indian Law Society have moved the Bombay High Court, challenging a communication issued by the Savitribai Phule Pune University fixing the quantum of "Other Fees" chargeable for LL.B. and B.A. LL.B. programmes from the academic year 2026-27. The petitioners contend that the University's decision is arbitrary, was taken without any proposal from the institution, without inquiry or hearing, and has the effect of drastically reducing the fees previously charged by the college.
The Bombay High Court recently ordered a hacking group - FulcrumSec not to leak or make public, the 'stolen' sensitive information pertaining to children from thousands of schools in Mumbai and abroad run by Pratiksha Foundation Charitable Trust, for which the group has demanded USD 750,000.
A group of practising advocates has approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the ongoing recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge in Maharashtra, contending that serving judicial officers have been illegally permitted to compete under the 25% direct recruitment quota reserved exclusively for practising advocates.
The Bombay High Court while emphasising on the importance of trees, recently made it clear that compensatory afforestation, which is usually done after cutting down trees for a development work, cannot be permitted to be done at a distant or remote place and rather must be done in the close proximity of the very place from where the trees were initially felled.
The Indian National Congress (INC) has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2025 arguing that it violates the fundamental guarantees enshrined in the Constitution of India including principles of reasonableness and proportionality, freedom of speech and expression, etc.
Even after 75 years of independence, if a citizen has to approach a constitutional court seeking a direction to the State to provide potable drinking water, in such a circumstance, a progressive State like Maharashtra cannot be heard to be giving excuses for not providing the relief, observed the Bombay High Court on Monday (June 22) while noting that several parts across the State are not getting drinking water.
While bidding adieu to the Bombay High Court, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi on Tuesday (June 23) said that for achieving the satisfaction of his or her work, a judge must do his job to the best of his ability and not by trying to satisfy or please anyone. Justice Kankanwadi, who was elevated to the High Court 9 years ago, retired from service after being a judge for a total of 34 years.
Bombay High Court judge Justice Ashish Chavan on Wednesday recused from hearing a plea filed by Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, the former manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. In his plea, the father has alleged that his daughter was "murdered" and did not commit suicide.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 25) while imposing a cost of Rs 15,000 on producer Suneel Darshan, allowed to restore his appeal filed against a judgment delivered way back in 2015 by a single-judge, who dismissed two arbitration petitions filed by the filmmaker and Bollywood Actor Sunny Deol raising claims against each other.
The Bombay High Court earlier this week refused to pass a gag order restraining popular local YouTube news channel Galli News from reporting on allegations of negligence against a city-based hospital over claims that a surgical gauze was left inside a woman's body. However, single-judge Justice Arif Doctor restrained the news channel from using certain 'defamatory' words such as 'Kattalkhana' (slaughterhouse) for the Habib Esmail Hospital and Medical Trust, situated in Pydhonie area of Mumbai.
"It's Been Two Decades, Wake Up Now" Bombay High Court Criticises BMC Over Potholed Roads In Mumbai
The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 29) sharply criticised the the Brihanmumbai Municipal Commissioner (BMC) over its failure to resolve the issue of poor roads in Mumbai for the last 20 years. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata said it's high time that the BMC must "wake up" to reality and finally put an end to the issue of bad roads and potholed roads in the city.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 15) ordered UK-based Doctor and YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil to file an undertaking spelling out that he will co-operate with the ongoing investigations against him for posting a 'defamatory' post on social media against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday orally told Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami not to use any "embellishments" while reporting on the ongoing investigations against industrialist Anil Ambani. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor made it clear that he was not going to pass any gag order against the channel but asked Goswami to tone down the tenor of his reporting against Ambani.
In a development in the ongoing defamation suit filed by Aditya Dhar, the director of "Dhurandhar" against filmmaker Santosh Kumar, for accusing the former of 'plagiarism' for his 'script', the Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 16) urged both the parties to try and 'settle' the dispute and not 'escalate' the same to the extent of filing defamation suit.
The Bombay High Court recently asked the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) to initiate appropriate proceedings against advocate Santosh Damodar Chande for putting in appearance for private persons without any authority and also for misleading the court. A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Nivedita Mehta ordered the BCM to take action against Chande for, what it termed, his 'misconduct' before the court.
Bombay High Court Seeks Centre's Response On PIL Seeking Inclusion Of SSPE In Rare Diseases Policy
The Bombay High Court on Friday ordered the Central Government to clarify its stance on a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting the sufferings of the families and also the patients diagnosed with a rare neurodegenerative disease called - Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE), which is caused by mutated measles virus.
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.'
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.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by actor Anita Advani, who sought recognition of her 'relationship' with late Bollywood Superstar Rajesh Khanna as a 'marriage.' Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed the First Appeal filed by Advani challenging a 2017 order of a Civil Court in Dindoshi, Mumbai. The Civil Court had rejected her suit on technical grounds.'
The Bombay High Court on Monday orally told Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami, to avoid using disparaging adjectives while reporting on industrialist Anil Ambani and investigations involving Reliance group of companies.
While refusing to expedite the hearing in a First Appeal pending since 2021, the Bombay High Court recently remarked that it is not humanly possible to dispose of First Appeals at the admission stage itself as the courts dealing with these cases are run by humans and not artificial intelligence.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 2) directed the Maharashtra Government to file its response to a writ petition which has challenged the decision of the State to scrap the 5 per cent reservation in education to Muslim community.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (April 06) ordered the Directorate General of Shipping established under the Union Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways to clear its stand on a plea seeking DNA tests of the mortal remains of an Indian Seafarer, who died in Oman coast due to an Iranian missile strike.
A writ petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking the return of the mortal remains of an Indian seafarer, who died in Oman coast due to an Iranian missile strike.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 7) ordered the Director General, Shipping to hand over the mortal remains of the Indian Seafarer, who died due to an Iranian missile strike near Oman Coast, to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Kalina, Mumbai for conducting a DNA test of the same.
The Bombay High Court was recently informed that the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Nagpur as per its corrective measures has granted admission to a Nomadic Tribe (NT) - C category candidate in its PhD batch of 2025.
In a temporary respite for Aditya Dhar, director of the recently released Bollywood film Dhurandhar, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday restrained filmmaker Santosh Kumar from making any comments regarding the film, which could be defamatory.
Comedian Kunal Kamra has claimed before the Bombay High Court that the situation due Centre's Sahyog Portal, which was introduced vide 2025 amendment to the IT Rules, is such that even an ordinary policeman is ordering takedown of content which they think is "objectionable."
PIL In Bombay High Court Seeks Rules Under Anti-Superstition Act After 'Godman' Ashok Kharat Case
Following the FIR against self-styled Godman Ashok Kharat accused of sexually exploiting women, a PIL has been filed in Bombay High Court, Kolhapur bench claiming 'ineffective' implementation of Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice & other Inhuman, Evil & Aghori Practices & Black Magic Act 2013.
In the ongoing dispute between the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Sahara Hospitality Limited, with regards to the property tax of the popular 'Sahara Star' - the five star hotel near Mumbai International Airport, the Bombay High Court recently made it clear if the hotel owners deposit Rs 23.89 crores within a period of four weeks, the water connection of the hotel would be restored.