Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 539Nominal IndexNikhil Madhukar Thepale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489Samantha Ruth Prabhu vs John Does, Ashok Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 490Rani Pratap Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491Pawan Subhash Sarkale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 492M/s. Economy Engineering Co. vs M/s. The...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 539
Nominal Index
Nikhil Madhukar Thepale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
Samantha Ruth Prabhu vs John Does, Ashok Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
Rani Pratap Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
Pawan Subhash Sarkale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 492
M/s. Economy Engineering Co. vs M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 493
Baliram Sitaram Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
Dhiren Sushil Roy vs Cyber Police Station, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
Viren Buildcon LLP vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
In Re: Unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings vs Dilip Wagh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
Vinayak Popat Wale vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
Zakir Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 500
Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 501
Rahul Raj Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 502
Devesh Ravindra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 503
Vijay vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 504
Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid vs Sagar Durgadas Rathod,2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 505
Krushna Arun Shingare vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 507
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 508
R vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 509
In Re: Compliance with the Directions Issued by the Supreme Court vsState of Goa , 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 510
Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 511
Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited vs Heera Construction Company Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 512
Shrihari Hardas Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 513
Sunetra Rajendra Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 514
State of Maharashtra vs Dhananjay Sakharam Bhosale, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 515
Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 516
Shivshankar Shripal Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 517
M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction Private Limited vs Shradhha Realtors, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 518
In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 519
Sirish Bhagawn Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 520
Antaral Co-Operative Housing Society vs Enforcement Directorate, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 521
Bipin Satish Chandra Agrwal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 522
State of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 523
Ganesh Hotlappa @ Prabhakar Padampalle vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 524
Omprakash Ramdhani Kanaujia vs The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 525
Marathi Wadal Pratishthan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 526
Anand Harishchandra Chouhan vs Smt. Shaila, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 527
In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 528
Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 529
Ashwin Ashara vs MCGM, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 530
Ganesh Kailas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 531
Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 532
Shri Nisar Mohammed Pathan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 533
Harjit Kaur Onkar Singh Kalra vs Rose Venkateshan V Alias Rose Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 534
Auto Credit Corporation vs Mukesh Bansilal Shah, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 535
Rajendra Suryabhan Darade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 536
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 537
Arun Thomas Ferreira vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 538
Vishnu Trimbak Warungase vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 539
Final Orders/Judgment:
Case Title: Nikhil Madhukar Thepale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the act of circulating objectionable videos or photographs of a person belong to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe on a social media platform like WhatsApp, would attract the provisions of the stringent Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the same is within the 'public view.'
Case Title: Samantha Ruth Prabhu vs John Does, Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) while protecting the personality rights of South Indian film actress Samantha Ruth Prabhu, ordered Google, Meta Platforms and other social media platforms and John Doe (unknown parties), to pull down the objectionable and derogatory content uploaded featuring her.
Case Title: Rani Pratap Singh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
In a strongly worded judgment, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) held that a Indian Citizen booked for running a brothel and forcing a woman into prostitution cannot be spared just because the woman is an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh as this would be nothing but 'victim shaming.' The High Court said that labels such as 'illegal immigrant' does not strip the woman's dignity and protection against trafficking.
Case Title: Pawan Subhash Sarkale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 492
The Bombay High Court has held that merely demanding an exorbitant or disproportionate amount during settlement talks does not by itself attract Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code or constitute an offence of extortion. The Court observed that an intentional threat or fear of injury is an essential ingredient of the offence, and quashed the FIR against the flat purchasers.
Case Title: M/s. Economy Engineering Co. vs M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 493
The Bombay High Court has held that conversion of a proprietorship concern into a partnership firm and subsequently into a private limited company comprising the original tenant's family members does not amount to subletting where no third person is inducted into the business. The Court further held that the 2015 amendment to Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, replacing “may” with “shall”, has prospective effect.
Case Title: Baliram Sitaram Chavan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
The Bombay High Court has held that a child victim's admission that she had memorized what was read to her by the police does not, by itself, establish that she was tutored. The Court observed that where the victim remains steadfast in cross-examination, and her material testimony remains intact, such an admission cannot be treated as sufficient to discredit her evidence.
Case Title: Dhiren Sushil Roy vs Cyber Police Station
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
The Bombay High Court has ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) to weed out advocates who willfully and casually refuse to obey the court orders and to further take a strict action against such advocates and give a clearly strong message to the members not to defy court orders.
Case Title: Viren Buildcon LLP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
The Bombay High Court had held that extra excavation of soil/earth during construction, by itself, does not make the excavated material a minor mineral so as to attract royalty. The Court observed that royalty cannot be imposed unless it is positively demonstrated, or clear inferences can be drawn, that the excavated material was used for purposes specified in the relevant notification.
Bombay High Court Seizes Man's Phone For Recording Court Proceedings, Imposes ₹10,000 Costs
Case Title: In Re: Unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings vs Dilip Wagh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
Observing that instances of litigants recording Court proceedings and misusing the same are on the rise, the Bombay High Court on Monday (October 5) ordered confiscation of a man's mobile handset for video recording the proceedings and also imposed cost of Rs 10,000 for such act.
Case Title: Vinayak Popat Wale vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
The Bombay High Court has held that prescribing a Diploma as an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer is not illegal merely because candidates possessing only an Engineering Degree are excluded. The Court held that the employer is well-equipped to determine the desirable qualification for a particular post and that the Court cannot lay down conditions of eligibility or treat a higher qualification as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.
Case Title: Bhimaji Parshuram Sabale vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 499
Merely informing the undertrial prisoner through the Jail Superintendent about the prosecution having applied for extension of the 180-days period for completing the probe under stringent Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and granting an opportunity to the accused person to file a written reply will not automatically equate with the accused person's production before the Court, held the Bombay High Court recently while granting bail to 8 men booked in a case wherein over 1.837 kgs of mephedrone was recovered.
Case Title: Zakir Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 500
The Bombay High Court has held that a hospital licensee cannot disown an illegal abortion conducted by an unqualified person merely by claiming that he had not performed any “overt act”, while rejecting anticipatory bail to the licensee of Galaxy Hospital. The Court observed that the applicant, who had control and supervision over the hospital, was duty-bound to ensure that it was being run in compliance with statutory requirements and that qualified medical practitioners and nurses were engaged.
Case Title: Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 501
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust seeking exemption from property tax, holding that an educational institution must establish for every financial year that its buildings and lands are solely occupied and used for a public charitable purpose. The Court held that merely running an educational institution, or being a linguistic minority institution, does not by itself entitle a Trust to exemption under Section 132 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Case Title: Rahul Raj Singh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 502
Nearly after a decade of being named as an accused in the suicide case of popular TV actress Pratyusha Banerjee, the Bombay High Court recently discharged her boyfriend and event planner Rahul Raj Singh, observing that there was no material on record to show that the Balika Vadhu fame actress took the extreme step due to the alleged harassment by him.
Case Title: Devesh Ravindra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 503
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 7) criticised the 'practice' of the public prosecutors to 'vehemently' oppose bail applications even in cases of long incarceration. The High Court said that even in cases where an accused is behind the bars for years altogether, the prosecutors oppose the bail applications citing the 'severity' of the crime.
Case Title: Vijay vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 504
The Bombay High Court has held that pouring kerosene on wife and telling her to die amounted to active instigation and provocation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, upholding the conviction of a husband whose wife subsequently set herself on fire. The Court observed that although the deceased herself ignited the fire, the accused had put her in a situation where she took the extreme step.
Case Title: Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid vs Sagar Durgadas Rathod
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 505
The Bombay High Court has held two advocates guilty of contempt of Court for threatening a Judicial Officer in open court and attempting to pressurise him while he was conducting proceedings. The Court emphasized the need to maintain dignity, and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 each and costs of ₹50,000 on the advocates concerned, besides referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
Case Title: Kasif Sahabuddin Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 506
The Bombay High Court had held that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in cases involving offences under Sections 65 or 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is not absolute. The Court observed that the application can be examined to determine whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out; if they are, the statutory bar operates and the application is not maintainable.
Case Title: Krushna Arun Shingare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 507
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police to review existing arrest instructions and forms and issue corrective instructions to ensure that the binding directions of the Supreme Court are complied with. The Court observed that merely mentioning the crime number and penal provisions, or recording that the accused was informed of the grounds, does not establish compliance when the documents contain no factual basis connecting the accused with the offence.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 508
The Bombay High Court recently denied permission to terminate the pregnancy of a 33-year-old married woman, who sought the leave on the ground that her husband had concealed his earlier marriage from her. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish Chavan noted that the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act does not allow a woman to terminate pregnancy on the grounds of her husband concealing an earlier marriage.
Case Title: R vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 509
In-laws asking daughter-in-law to do household chores like washing clothes and utensils would not amount to cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they cannot be prosecuted on this allegation, held the Bombay High Court while quashing FIR against six members of a family.
Case Title: In Re: Compliance with the Directions Issued by the Supreme Court vsState of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 510
The Bombay High Court has warned that it may initiate contempt proceedings against Panchayat Secretaries, Chief Officers of Municipal Councils and the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) for failing to comply with directions on collecting data about stray dogs, pet dogs and stray cattle, and setting up temporary animal shelters. The Court reiterated that the officials must comply with its directions and file the required reports.
Case Title: Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 511
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a woman accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that the search and seizure of contraband from her was prima facie vitiated because the search was conducted in the presence and gaze of male police personnel and a male panch witness. The Court observed that Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act requires a female accused to be searched in seclusion and to the exclusion of males, and that merely having a female police officer conduct the search does not satisfy this requirement.
Bombay High Court Pulls Up Litigant For Joining Court VC While Lying On Bed Without Clothes
Case Title: Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited vs Heera Construction Company Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 512
The Bombay High Court has deprecated the conduct of a litigant who joined a video-conferencing hearing while lying on a bed without wearing clothes, observing that parties cannot be exhibited in such a manner before the Court while seeking exemption from personal appearance. The Court directed the litigant to leave the video conference and directed that on the next date, he must either remain personally present or place appropriate medical documents on record if he was medically advised not to travel.
Case Title: Shrihari Hardas Chavan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 513
The Bombay High Court has held that a person's caste, tribe or community can never constitute incriminating material and that no adverse inference can be drawn on that basis. The Court observed that the prosecution must stand or fall on legally admissible evidence while rejecting bail applications filed by three accused booked under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
Case Title: Sunetra Rajendra Pawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 514
The Bombay High Court has held that non-payment of salaries directly breaches the fundamental rights guaranteed to employees under Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court observed that no institution can function in a manner prejudicial to or exploitative of its employees by withholding their salaries, which constitute their basic source of livelihood and survival.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Dhananjay Sakharam Bhosale
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 515
The Bombay High Court has upheld the discharge of an Additional Public Prosecutor accused of demanding a bribe, holding that an Additional Public Prosecutor appointed on a tenure basis is not a public servant for the purposes of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of UP vs Johri Mal, which distinguishes the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors from that of Assistant Public Prosecutors, who are employees of the State.
Case Title: Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 516
While denying anticipatory bail to a man booked for assaulting and pressuring an advocate from appearing in a criminal case for a litigant, the Bombay High Court said that there is an 'urgent' need of enacting a comprehensive legislation to provide protection to Advocates.
Case Title: Shivshankar Shripal Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 517
The Bombay High Court has held that an appeal against acquittal filed before the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not require leave of the High Court under Section 378(3). The Court observed that the amendment to Section 378 changed only the procedural forum for filing an appeal and did not affect the substantive right of appeal.
Case Title: M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction Private Limited vs Shradhha Realtors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 518
The Bombay High Court has held that a counterclaim need not relate to the same property or cause of action involved in the plaintiff's suit, while restoring a counterclaim excluded by the trial court. The Court observed that the discretion vested in the Court under Order VIII Rule 6-C CPC is required to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure the determination of all the questions in controversy.
Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 519
Observing that the future generations must remain healthy and not be visiting hospitals for medical treatment, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 15) made it clear that its earlier order imposing a total ban on bursting of fire crackers on public streets would not be limited only to the Ganapti festival but the same would be applicable to all the religious festivals celebrated throughout the year, across Maharashtra.
Financial Burden On State Is No Ground To Deny Legitimate Dues To Teachers: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sirish Bhagawn Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 520
The Bombay High Court while ordering the Maharashtra Government to grant the benefit of 'rectified' pay scale under the fifth pay commission to teachers with effect from January 1, 1996 instead of January 1, 2000, held that merely because there will be a financial burden on the State, the teachers cannot be denied their legitimate dues.
Case Title: Antaral Co-Operative Housing Society vs Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 521
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 15) ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to grant a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to a housing society so that it could proceed with its redevelopment, which was stuck because one of the flats among the total 10 flats in the 44-year-old building was attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Case Title: Bipin Satish Chandra Agrwal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 522
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22) ordered the Maharashtra Government to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to a man, who was illegally arrested by the Mumbai Police and was kept in detention for nearly 26 days.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 523
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22) ordered the Maharashtra Police to take strict action not only against foreign nationals illegally entering Indian borders but also against those Indians, who help such infiltrators settle here by creating unauthorised documents like Aadhar Card, PAN Card and also the Election Card.
Case Title: Ganesh Hotlappa @ Prabhakar Padampalle vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 524
The Bombay High Court has held that removing a child's undergarment with sexual intent, without proceeding to any further act, amounts to an attempt to commit sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court reduced the sentence of a man convicted in a case involving a three-and-a-half-year-old girl from five years to three-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment, applying Section 18 of the POCSO Act.
Bombay High Court Seizes Phone After Advocate's Clerk Caught Recording Court Proceedings, Fines Both
Case Title: Omprakash Ramdhani Kanaujia vs The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 525
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the seizure of a mobile handset and further imposed cost of Rs 10,000 on an advocate's clerk caught videorecording the court proceedings, purportedly on instructions of a Junior Advocate. The High Court also imposed cost of Rs 25,000 on the said Junior Advocate.
Case Title: Marathi Wadal Pratishthan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 526
The Bombay High Court has allowed a cultural organisation to organise Garba at Ramlila Maidan during Navratri, observing that the mere expectation of a large crowd cannot be treated as a law and order situation. The Court held that concerns regarding the annual Ravan Dahan event at the same ground could be addressed by imposing appropriate safety conditions.
Case Title: Anand Harishchandra Chouhan vs Smt. Shaila
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 527
The Bombay High Court has held that the availability of an alternative remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) does not bar a major unmarried daughter from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court observed that maintenance could not be denied to the daughter merely because she could pursue a separate remedy under Section 20(3) of HAMA.
Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 528
Expressing displeasure after hearing that no Bollywood actor has come forward to help the Maharashtra Government in its proposed campaign against bursting of firecrackers, the Bombay High Court on Monday (October 26) reminded the celebrities that its their time to give it back to the society and made it clear to the State not to 'waste' public money to rope in any celebrity for the said campaign.
Case Title: Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 529
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 27) quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a 20-year-old female engineering student for reposting a controversial post against Indian Army's "Operation Sindoor" against Pakistan. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav said, "Noting the fact that the petitioner is a young engineering student, I have allowed her plea."
Case Title: Ashwin Ashara vs MCGM
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 530
A writ of certiorari or mandamus cannot be issued to adjudicate a private dispute between flat owners and a developer concerning claims for additional flat area, amenities, parking and compensation arising out of a redevelopment project, the Bombay High Court has held.
Case Title: Ganesh Kailas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 531
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, observing that being an alcoholic and allegedly harassing family members cannot, by themselves, justify levelling serious allegations against him merely to teach him a lesson. The Court found material inconsistencies and improvements in the statements of the complainant and the victim, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case at the stage of bail.
Case Title: Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 532
The Bombay High Court while quashing FIR against a 20-year-old female engineering student for reposting a controversial post against "Operation Sindoor", held that a mere possibility that a publication may lead to resentment or displeasure, cannot be a ground to prosecute someone.
Case Title: Shri Nisar Mohammed Pathan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 533
The Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against two accused in a property dispute, holding that the essential ingredients of the offences were not prima facie established. The Court observed that no independent witness had corroborated the allegation that caste-based slurs were used in a place within public view.
Case Title: Harjit Kaur Onkar Singh Kalra vs Rose Venkateshan V Alias Rose Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 534
A regular hearing in a civil suit before the court room number 54 of the Bombay High Court turned shocking when a litigant tried to throw her purse towards the judge, after an order was passed against her. The female litigant, however restrained herself immediately.
Case Title: Auto Credit Corporation vs Mukesh Bansilal Shah
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 535
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order dismissing a chamber summons and imposing costs of ₹25 lakh, holding that the applicant's failure to seek clubbing of the matter with pending civil revision applications was not a ground to dismiss the application or impose such costs. The Court directed the Registry to move the Chief Justice for appropriate orders to have the matters tagged together for hearing.
Case Title: Rajendra Suryabhan Darade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 536
Discouraging the parents of a minor from reporting an offence publishable under the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act would not be punishable under section 21 of the Act as it only punishes failure to report an offence under the Act, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 28).
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 537
The Bombay High Court has rejected a 34-year-old woman's plea to terminate her 24-week pregnancy, observing that the marital discord between her and her husband did not appear to be serious or irreconcilable.
Case Title: Arun Thomas Ferreira vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 538
Reminding the Maharashtra Police of its motto - Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya - which is to protect the good and punish the evil, the Bombay High Court recently held that the September 2011 arrest of activist Arun Ferreira was "illegal" and therefore, ordered the State to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakhs to him.
Case Title: Vishnu Trimbak Warungase vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 539
The Bombay High Court has quashed a communication issued by a Special Officer in the name of the then Chief Justice, directing the withdrawal and suspension of a list of recommended trustees of a Nashik temple trust, holding that the officer had acted with gross impropriety and contrary to law. The Court observed that the Special Officer had misused the name of the Chief Justice and that the conduct possibly amounted to serious misconduct.
Others Developments:
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) flagged that Parth Pawar, son of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar and a Rajya Sabha MP, holds 99% stake in Ameida Enterprises LLP, which allegedly purchased a 40-acre government-owned land parcel in Pune's Mundhwa area at a price much lower than its actual value.
Goa SIR: Bombay High Questions ECI Over Automated Rejection Of Form 8
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday (October 1) sought to know from the Election Commission of India (ECI) as to why Form 8 applications meant for changing the address in the Voter ID were being rejected by its automated software system, during the ongoing process of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (October 5) refused to pass orders staying deletion of names of any citizen from the voters list in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Maharashtra. A division bench ofChief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna said it will observe judicial propriety and follow the directive of the Supreme Court, which, it was informed, had in November last year, restrained all High Courts from entertaining petitions challenging the validity of the SIR or any other aspects related to the process.
'What Is SIR's Purpose If Citizens Are Being Removed From Voter's List? Bombay High Court Asks ECI
The Bombay High Court bench at Goa on Monday (October 5) orally questioned the manner in which the election authority has been deleting names of citizens under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Reminding the Election Commission of India (ECI) of the Supreme Court's observations that the Commission is obligated to ensure that all Indian Citizens are included in the final voter list, a division bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar told ECI:
The Maharashtra Government while defending its decision to enact the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSA), on Tuesday (October 6) told the Bombay High Court that because of its highest urban population, the State has become a 'centre' for Maoist urban network and thus in absence of legal framework to ban such 'left wing extremist' organisations, it has come up with this law as done by States like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
"Pune is an education hub of the State and students coming to this city for education are genuinely interested in their studies and they aren't into getting down on streets for their demands, but if they are agitating it means there are some serious grievances, such students cannot be termed as anti-social," observed the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 7) while asking the Maharashtra Government to take genuine steps to get their trust restored in the system.
Just because South Bombay and Worli are clean does not mean that the entire city of Mumbai is clean, remarked the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 7) while pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for not undertaking effective measures to maintain proper health and hygiene across all the 24 wards in the city.
The Bombay High Court while hearing the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against the bail granted to dismissed cop Sachin Waze in the infamous Antilia Bomb Scare case, on Thursday (October 8) expressed surprise over the former Assistant Police Inspector (API) owning at least five high end cars and travelling in a Mercedes regularly.
The Bombay High Court has ordered the Maharashtra Government to ensure that an order passed way back in February 1998, which banned use of neon lights across Mumbai and neighbouring cities is implemented effectively this year, especially during the festive season to avoid causing light pollution. The Court was hearing a petition seeking declaration of 'dark sky friendly' areas across the State along with regulation of use such lights.
Bombay High Court Advocates Stage Symbolic Protest 'To Protect Constitution', Read Out Preamble
More than 50 advocates practising at the Bombay High Court on Monday (October 12) evening staged a symbolic protest opposite the High Court building at the iconic Flora Fountain site. The advocates, mostly young girls, gathered at the site, with an aim to read the Preamble of the Constitution and also to sing the National Anthem at the site.
A day after the Bombay High Court in a special and urgent Sunday sitting ordered the release of seven Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) members for staging protest in Panaji, the Goa Police on Monday (October 12) through an affidavit justified its move to detain the CJP members citing the 'past history' of the said outfit, wherein it was found to be 'patronising' Umar Khalid.
'Won't Permit This': Bombay High Court On Alleged Illegal Detentions During Mumbai CEC Protests
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, while hearing a PIL alleging that Mumbai Police detained protesters and passers-by during anti-CEC protests held in the city on October 10 and 11, orally said that it would not permit illegal detentions.
The Bombay High Court on Friday asked the Indian National Congress, the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) to furnish details of their registration, constitution and office-bearers before it proceeds to hear their petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSA).
While hearing the petitions filed by 12 Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holding budding cricketers, challenging the decision of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which has made 'Indian Passport' mandatory for players to play in any of its tournaments, Bombay High Court earlier this week, orally said that if these young players are 'so desperate' to play for India, they must then become an Indian citizen by accepting its citizenship.
Actor Imran Khan has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the "Leave India" notice issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) asking him to leave the country by October 28. Notably, Imran, US citizen and an OCI Card holder, was last week detained by the Mumbai Police for participating in the protests staged for removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the SIR process.
Bombay High Court To Hear Actor Imran Khan's Plea Against 'Leave India' Notice On October 26
The Bombay High Court on Monday agreed to hear a petition filed by actor Imran Khan, a US citizen and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, challenging a "Leave India Notice" issued to him by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) for allegedly attempting to participate in an anti-Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) protest.
The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Maharashtra State to respond to petitions alleging illegal detention of individuals by Mumbai Police during the anti-Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) protests held on October 10 and 11 at two places in the city.
Despite clear orders imposing a total ban on bursting of firecrackers on public streets and nearby silence zones like hospitals, schools, etc there has been no compliance of the same, particularly during religious processions, noted the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 21).
The Bombay High Court has permitted Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan to withdraw his plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, and file a fresh, comprehensive writ petition, observing that the existing petition did not adequately highlight the difficulties citizens may face due to the law or its repercussions.
If slum dwellers want to continue living in Mumbai they will need to "mend their ways" and ensure that they do not litter on public streets or anywhere in the city, said the Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22) with a clear warning that it may ask the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to forfeit the right to permanent alternate accommodation of such slum dwellers, who are caught throwing garbage in public places and are prosecuted for the same.
Bombay High Court To Hear Tomorrow Actor Imran Khan's Plea Against 'Leave India' Notice
The Bombay High Court will hear on Tuesday actor Imran Khan's plea challenging a 'Leave India Notice' (LIN) issued to him by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) for participating in the anti-CEC protests earlier this month.
The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on October 26, 2026, approved the proposal to appoint two persons as Judges of the Bombay High Court. The Collegium has recommended the appointment of Ajay Sharma, Judicial Member of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, and Advocate Vaibhav Anant Sugdare as Judges of the High Court.
Bombay High Court Keeps 'Leave India Notice' Issued To Actor Imran Khan In Abeyance Till Nov 2
Bollywood actor Imran Khan will not have to leave India at least till Monday (November 2) as assured by the Foreigners Registration Regional Office (FRRO), Mumbai today (October 27) before the Bombay High Court.
Woman Who Tried To Throw Purse At Bombay High Court Judge Apologises
The Bombay High Court on Friday refused to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings against a woman litigant, who had on October 27, attempted to throw her purse towards the judge, after an order was passed against her.
Actor Ajay Devgn Moves Bombay High Court Against FDA Show Cause Notice Over Vimal Elaichi Ad
Bollywood Actor Ajay Devgn has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Maharashtra Food & Drugs Administration (FDA) over him endorsing the Vimal Elaichi brand. Notably, in 2024, Devgn endorsed the brand Vimal Elaichi - a cardamom flavoured mouth freshner. However, on August 11, 2026, the Maharashtra FDA issued a SCN to Devgan and other two Bollywood Actors for promoting Vimal Pan Masala under the guise of promoting Vimal Elaichi.