Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 411 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 486Nominal IndexUshik Mahesh Gala vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 411Vishwanath Devaraja Rao vs Central Bureau of Investigations, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 412Mangesh Yashwant Parave vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 413Shekhar Shankar Joshi vs Anita Arun Bhave, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 414Satyam Surana vs High Court...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 411 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
Nominal Index
Ushik Mahesh Gala vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 411
Vishwanath Devaraja Rao vs Central Bureau of Investigations, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 412
Mangesh Yashwant Parave vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 413
Shekhar Shankar Joshi vs Anita Arun Bhave, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 414
Satyam Surana vs High Court of Bombay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 415
SRB vs DA, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 416
Satish Salian vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 417
Nitin Jairam Gadkari vs Meta Platforms, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 418
Savio Jose Xavier Viegas vs Dr. Mariano Godinho, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 419
Hasnain Riyazuddin Chauhan vs District Caste Scrutiny Committee, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 420
Vihar Shivajirao Durve vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 421
Dr. Chandrashekhar Madanlal Gattani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 422
Shruti Hasan vs Mahalaxmi Arts & Crafts, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
Balaji Yuvak Mandal vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 424
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dipali,
Devba Pauladsing Girase vs Kavita Himmatsing Girase, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 426
Shramik Janata Sangh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 427
Arun Narayan Patil vs Jayshree Jaywant Patil, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 428
Prajwal Tukaram Kasbekar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 429
Bhimrao Indeshwar Meshram vs Ashish Bhimrao Meshram, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 430
M/s Coda Payments India Pvt. Ltd. vs Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 431
Aarya Avinash Patil vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 432
Surekha Yashwant Pilankar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 433
Satish Salian vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 434
Mohan Rocky Springwater Pvt Ltd vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 435
Vaibhav Mahendrasingh Raghuwanshi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 436
Siddharth Agro vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 437
Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 438
Yash Pramod Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 439
Snehal Anandrao Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 440
Farida Mustak Mulla vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 441
Savita Arun Zambre vs Manjari Projects Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 442
KAG vs AAG, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 443
Chandan Sharad Pawar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 444
Hotel Alankar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 445
Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
Yogesh Gangaram Sanap vs Anil Mahadev Raghav, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 447
Nilesh Dahanukar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
Ravi Prakash Velicheti vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
Kashinath Dudhaji Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 450
Gopinath Janku Pradhan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 451
U vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 452
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 453
Dr. Swapan Garain vs Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 454
Britannia Dairy Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 455
Ashwini Heights Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Jyoti Nitin Lunia, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 456
The Deccan Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
LIC Housing Finance Limited vs Shrirang Sadashiv Gokhale, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 458
Nilima Dilip Kannurwar vs Child Welfare Committee, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 459
Sangita Jagannath Shete vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
State of Maharashtra vs Gorakh Arjun Marathe, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 461
Devidas vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 462
Kannamwar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 464
Vivek Prakash Padalwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 465
Mukesh W Siyal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 466
In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 467
Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 468
In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 469
Sunil Sundar Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
Kaustubh Shivkumar Vibhute vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 471
Sanjay Narang vs Joint Sub-Registrar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
Tansukhlal Pannalal Jain vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 474
Dr Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 475
State of Maharashtra vs Jitendra @ Pappu Babulal Shinde, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 476
Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan vs Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 477
M/s. Pharmed Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
Sadashiv Ambadas Gayake vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
A vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
Kalim Isaq Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
All India Travel Services vs Ashok K Upadhayay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
Narayan Tatu Rane vs Vinayak Bhaurao Raut, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
X vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
Lawyers Collective vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
Serum Institute of India vs Yohan Tengra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case Title: Ushik Mahesh Gala vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 411
The Bombay High Court while granting medical bail to a businessman booked in a Rs 137 crore money laundering case, held that there is a 'qualitative' difference in the treatment given to an undertrial in jail barracks and the one given to a citizen under no restraint.
Case Title: Vishwanath Devaraja Rao vs Central Bureau of Investigations
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 412
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Vishwanath Rao, the former Senior Vice President of the Reliance Communications group, who was booked in Rs 19,694.33 crore loan default case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Case Title: Mangesh Yashwant Parave vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 413
The Bombay High Court has held that slum dwellers cannot insist on in-situ rehabilitation on the land of a developer when permanent alternate accommodation is being offered to them. The Court observed that mere right of rehabilitation cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of ownership.
Case Title: Shekhar Shankar Joshi vs Anita Arun Bhave
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 414
The Bombay High Court has held that a coparcener can orally relinquish his or her share in ancestral property in favour of another coparcener, without executing a written instrument or getting it registered. The Court, however, clarified that such relinquishment has to be proved by the person asserting it and cannot be presumed merely from a document executed for deletion of the coparcener's name from revenue records.
Case Title: Satyam Surana vs High Court of Bombay
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 415
The Bombay High Court has held that separate court fees are payable “per Petitioner” and not “per Petition” when individual causes of action of multiple petitioners are sought to be espoused through a joint writ petition. The Court observed that where a “same” or “common” cause of action is espoused, and the relief benefits the group as a whole, payment of one set of court fees would suffice.
Case Title: SRB vs DA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 416
The concept of 'joint parenting' is not recognised in any of the Indian laws governing child custody or guardianship cases, the Bombay High Court held on Tuesday (September 1), while emphasising on the fact that in child custody matters, paramount importance is given to the welfare of the child and not on the 'parental' rights.
Case Title: Satish Salian vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 417
The Bombay High Court while ordering a CBI investigation into the alleged 'suspicious' death of Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, took into account the multiple and grave discrepancies in the initial investigation carried out by the Mumbai Police.
Case Title: Nitin Jairam Gadkari vs Meta Platforms
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 418
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 2) reiterated its order directing social media platforms to take down the deepfake, AI videos linking senior BJP leader and Union Minister Nitin Gadkari with the controversial Ethanol-blended fuel policy.
Case Title: Savio Jose Xavier Viegas vs Dr. Mariano Godinho
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 419
The Bombay High Court has held that a birth which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence can be registered only on an order of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The Court observed that an Executive Magistrate or Mamlatdar cannot exercise jurisdiction for delayed registration beyond one year, and struck down Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Rules providing for the same.
'Muslim' Prefix/ Suffix Can't Be Basis To Discard Caste Certificate: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Hasnain Riyazuddin Chauhan vs District Caste Scrutiny Committee
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 420
'Muslim' is a religion and not a caste and thus, a caste certificate cannot be invalidated merely because it mentions the word Muslim as a prefix or suffix to the caste, held the Bombay High Court while quashing the decision of a Caste Scrutiny Committee, which invalidated a Class 12 student's certificate on the ground that the documents he relied upon, including the pre-constitutional documents of his forefathers, mentioned their caste as 'Musalman Lohar", "Lohar Muslim" etc.
Case Title: Vihar Shivajirao Durve vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 421
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 1) issued a contempt notice to Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor, Department of Law and Judiciary, Maharashtra, after observing that he launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone “bordering to shouting” and blamed the High Court administration during court proceedings.
Case Title: Dr. Chandrashekhar Madanlal Gattani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 422
The Bombay High Court has held that acquisition of land for constructing a mural depicting the life of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and beautification of the area surrounding his statue constitutes a “public purpose” under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court observed that such a mural is an investment in the intellectual and moral foundations of our future generations, highlighting that Dr. Ambedkar's contributions to the nation are the foundation of the Indian constitutional framework.
Case Title: Shruti Hasan vs Mahalaxmi Arts & Crafts
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
The Bombay High Court has directed social media platforms to take down objectionable content concerning actor Shruti Haasan that violates her right to dignity, holding that she has made out a “very strong prima facie” case for protection of her personality rights.
Case Title: Balaji Yuvak Mandal vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 424
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a dispute between two office bearers of a registered trust cannot be a valid ground to withhold the grants for running a school under 'Aid to voluntary organization working for scheduled caste Ashramshala' scheme.
Case Title: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dipali
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 425
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has held that an insurance company cannot escape its statutory liability towards a third party merely because the insurance premium cheque was dishonoured, if the insurer failed to inform the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) about the policy's cancellation.
Case Title: Devba Pauladsing Girase vs Kavita Himmatsing Girase
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 426
The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court ruled that an application by a senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007 cannot be used to frustrate the judicial orders or harass a party protected by a court order.
Case Title: Shramik Janata Sangh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 427
In a strongly worded order, the Bombay High Court has criticised the continued practice of 'manual scavenging' stating that even while India has reached the other side of the Moon, yet the social evil of 'caste system' is still followed in our country and this hard reality stares us in the face, which forces citizens to do work that is 'below' human dignity.
Case Title: Arun Narayan Patil vs Jayshree Jaywant Patil
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 428
The Bombay High Court has held that an alienation of joint family property made by an outsider cannot be made a subject matter of a partition suit between the members of the joint family. The Court observed that whether the outsider had title to pass on to the purchaser cannot be decided in a suit for partition of the joint family properties.
Case Title: Prajwal Tukaram Kasbekar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 429
The Bombay High Court has strongly criticised the State authorities' “pick and choose” method while implementing a one-time scheme for reimbursement of fees to students who lost admission to Government or Aided medical colleges due to the application of EWS and SEBC reservation. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 20.09.2019 after finding that students with lower merit had been given the benefit of the reimbursement scheme while the petitioners were excluded.
Person Receiving Pension Not Entitled To Maintenance Under Senior Citizens Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Bhimrao Indeshwar Meshram vs Ashish Bhimrao Meshram
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 430
The Bombay High Court has held that a senior citizen who is receiving regular pension as well as family pension and is able to maintain himself does not fall within the meaning of Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court highlighted that the Act was brought on the statute book to provide for appropriate mechanism to be set up to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens.
Case Title: M/s Coda Payments India Pvt. Ltd. vs Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 431
The Bombay High Court has set aside the freezing of the bank accounts and payment aggregator/payment gateway accounts of Coda Payments India Pvt. Ltd., amounting to approximately ₹100 crores, holding that the Adjudicating Authority failed to record the mandatory finding under Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court further held that where the Adjudicating Authority omits the mandatory finding as to whether the property is involved in money laundering, the Appellate Tribunal cannot subsequently supply that finding to cure the defect.
Case Title: Aarya Avinash Patil vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 432
The Bombay High Court has held that a student pursuing the First Professional MBBS course cannot be permitted more than four attempts for the first year, irrespective of the subjects in which the student appeared in each attempt. The Court accordingly dismissed a petition filed by an MBBS student seeking permission to appear for the Anatomy examination for the fourth time, holding that she had already exhausted four attempts for the first year MBBS course.
Case Title: Surekha Yashwant Pilankar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 433
The Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has held that a dependent mother of a deceased “single” government employee cannot be denied family pension solely on the ground that she has other surviving children, if those children are not in a position to provide her economic sustenance.
Case Title: Satish Salian vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 434
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 2) ordered CBI investigation in the death of Disha Salian, former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, who died in alleged mysterious circumstances by falling from the 14th floor of a high-rise in suburban Malad in June 2020.
Old Monk Can't Be Sold As 'Rum', It Is 'Rum-Flavoured Spirit' : FSSAI Tells Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mohan Rocky Springwater Pvt Ltd vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 435
The Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) earlier this week, told the Bombay High Court that it cannot permit the manufacturers of the brand Old Monk, to sell its product as "Rum" as it used "additional flavours."
Case Title: Vaibhav Mahendrasingh Raghuwanshi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 436
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs. 2 Lakh as compensation to a 26-year-old man who was arrested without being informed of the grounds of arrest or being issued a proper notice. A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj Wakode reiterated the well-settled principle that High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution have jurisdiction to grant monetary compensation to a victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 have been violated by State officials.
Case Title: Siddharth Agro vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 437
After noting a pattern of the Maharashtra Food & Drugs Administration (FDA) in dealing with cases of licence suspensions of establishments, the Bombay High Court recently made it clear that once an establishment, whose licence has been suspended by the authority, rectifies the deficiencies and an autogenerated report indicates compliance, the authority must revoke the suspension.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 438
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 8) refused to quash the criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”. Gandhi had challenged Magistrate court summons in the case and argued that the complaint filed by a BJP worker was not maintainabile. He claiming that he had not named the party and that no “identifiable or definite class” had been targeted, in the absence of which there is no clearly aggrieved person or group having locus standi to prosecute the case.
Case Title: Yash Pramod Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 439
The Bombay High Court has upheld the cancellation of admissions of three students to the two-year full-time MMS Course at Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies (JBIMS), after finding that they had secured admission on the basis of materially inflated academic credentials. The Court held that the fact that the students had reached the final semester, appeared for examinations or secured placements could not outweigh the requirement of fair admissions.
Case Title: Snehal Anandrao Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 440
The Bombay High Court has held that the exclusion of Scheduled Tribe students from a Government Circular extending the time for submitting caste validity certificates to other reserved categories is prima facie discriminatory. The Court held that the benefit of the three-month extension under the Circular dated 4 September 2026 should also be extended to Scheduled Tribe students whose caste validity certificates were pending.
Case Title: Farida Mustak Mulla vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 441
The Bombay High Court has quashed a Government Resolution reducing the maximum permissible age for promotion of Anganwadi Sevikas to Supervisor from 55 years to 50 years. The Court held that legitimate expectation arose from the Government Resolution dated 17 November 2001 and corrigendum dated 7 December 2001, under which Anganwadi Sevikas up to 55 years were eligible for promotion.
Case Title: Savita Arun Zambre vs Manjari Projects Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 442
The Bombay High Court has held that an assignee under a deed of assignment executed before the filing of a suit cannot be added as a co-plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) merely on the ground that the original plaintiff's rights have been assigned. The Court observed that there was no bona fide mistake involved for which adding a third party as a co-plaintiff could be allowed.
Bombay High Court Criticises Family Court's 'Regressive' Remarks On 'Pious Duties' Of Wife
Case Title: KAG vs AAG
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 443
The Bombay High Court recently expressed displeasure with a Pune Family Court for sermonising and setting out the so-called 'pious' duties of a wife towards her husband and handing over a minor boy's custody to his father. The High Court held that Judges must be 'mindful' while making observations and avoid making any 'unwarranted' or 'unconnected' remarks.
Case Title: Chandan Sharad Pawar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 444
The Bombay High Court has observed that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai cannot discriminate against sanitary workers merely because they belong to the lowest rung in the hierarchy of municipal employees. The Court noted that the State Government had formulated a policy in 2008 requiring the Municipal Corporation to provide housing to sanitary workers on ownership basis, but the policy has not been implemented for almost 18 years.
Case Title: Hotel Alankar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 445
The Bombay High Court has held that suspension of a food licence for non-compliances having the propensity to harm public health cannot be continued indefinitely once the deficiencies have been rectified and the establishment achieves “exemplar” compliance on re-inspection. The Court observed that the consequence of compliance of the deficiencies should result in revocation of the suspension, with continued monitoring as mandated by law.
Case Title: Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
The Bombay High Court has held that merely shouting loudly at each other on a public street, without any other specific allegation, does not make out a cognizable offence under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The Court observed that apart from the allegation that the accused were shouting at each other loudly, there was no allegation of obscenity, depravity or moral offensiveness.
Case Title: Yogesh Gangaram Sanap vs Anil Mahadev Raghav
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 447
The Bombay High Court has refused to transfer the interim custody of an 11-year-old girl, who has been living with her neighbours since infancy, to her biological parents. The Court observed that the child had shown “complete indifference” towards her biological parents and had explicitly expressed her preference to remain with the neighbours, and such preference could not be completely disregarded.
Case Title: Nilesh Dahanukar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned how it could restrain Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange-Patil from protesting, observing that India is a democracy and “right to agitate is a fundamental right”. A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna was hearing a petition seeking directions in connection with the “March to Mumbai” call given by Patil, who recently ended his 12-day hunger strike demanding reservation for the Maratha community.
Case Title: Ravi Prakash Velicheti vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
The Bombay High Court recently quashed the process issued against the Directors of TV9 News Channel named in a defamation case filed by a Mumbai Police Officer over a video aired on their channel, wherein the said officer was allegedly assaulted by another man and a woman in a public place.
Case Title: Kashinath Dudhaji Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 450
The Bombay High Court has held that loss of milk business carried on from a stable situated on acquired land qualifies for compensation, as “land” under Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, includes the benefits arising out of land. The Court observed that the Appellant had produced evidence regarding his milk business and that the loss of such business resulted from acquisition of the land.
Case Title: Gopinath Janku Pradhan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 451
The Bombay High Court recently while denying bail to a man booked for killing a month old granddaughter in connivance with his family, bemoaned the continued preference of people to have a male child instead of a female child even after 80 years of independence.
Case Title: U vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 452
The Bombay High Court recently while upholding the bail cancellation of a minor boy, a prime accused in the Ghatkopar hit-and-run case, noted that he was not under 'parental control' but in company of 'spoilt and affluent' children making videos of stunts etc and thus to curb such activities in society, it was important for the minor boy, who has now become an adult, to be kept in a 'reformative' home.
Case Title: Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 453
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (September 17) permitted the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to cut down a total 1,237 mangroves for constructing the Versova-Madh Island 'connector' bridge, which would reduce the travel time from 22 km to 1.5 km for one to reach to Madh Island from western suburbs.
Case Title: Dr. Swapan Garain vs Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 454
Merely creating a WhatsApp group by an employee without permission of the employer is not a ground to remove a person from his or her job, the Bombay High Court held on Wednesday (September 16) while quashing a voluntarily retirement order passed against a Professor, working with Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), who was punished for creating a 'parallel' WhatsApp group.
Case Title: Britannia Dairy Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 455
The Bombay High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Britannia Dairy Private Limited over allegations concerning unsafe Britannia Cheese Cubes, holding that the company was denied statutory safeguards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Court observed that the delay in issuing notice, non-supply of the laboratory testing report and consequent deprivation of the Applicant's statutory rights to have the food sample tested by a referral laboratory and to file an appeal rendered continuation of the proceedings entirely untenable.
Case Title: Ashwini Heights Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Jyoti Nitin Lunia
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 456
The Bombay High Court has held that a godown separately sanctioned in the development permission qualifies as a “Flat” under Section 154B-1(13) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and its owner is entitled to membership of a cooperative housing society. The Court observed that the statutory definition of “Flat” includes a godown and that the godown in the present case was independently sanctioned in the development plan.
Case Title: The Deccan Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
The Bombay High Court has held that Government land over which access has been permitted to a person cannot be taken for his exclusive use merely because he has constructed a road or gate on it. The Court held that the access must remain open to the petitioner as well as others, while observing that the petitioner's access itself cannot be stopped without issuing proper notice.
Case Title: LIC Housing Finance Limited vs Shrirang Sadashiv Gokhale
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 458
The Bombay High Court has held that doctors cannot claim exemption from complying with a Court order requiring them to vacate a secured property on the ground that patients required treatment. The Court observed that admitting patients in the hospital in defiance of its specific directions amounted to aggravated contempt.
Case Title: Nilima Dilip Kannurwar vs Child Welfare Committee
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 459
The Bombay High Court has held that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) does not have the power to deal with a child who is neither an orphan nor abandoned. The Court observed that though due procedure was not followed in the adoption of the child, the CWC's order was not justified, and granted custody of the child back to the adoptive parents.
Case Title: Sangita Jagannath Shete vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
The Bombay High Court has granted protection from arrest to a woman advocate accused in a forex fraud case, observing that the only allegation against her was that she had allowed her office to be used for a meeting by the other accused persons. The Court noted that there was no material to show that she was aware of the nature of the meeting and neither had she played any major role in the alleged offence.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Gorakh Arjun Marathe
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 461
The Bombay High Court has held that microscopic examination is not an analytical or chemical analysis test and cannot be relied upon to establish food adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court observed that the Act does not provide for or acknowledge microscopic examination as a test and held that the results of such examination had no sanctity.
Case Title: Devidas vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 462
The Bombay High Court has held that a “family feud” need not be a dispute continuing across generations and that a prior dispute between family members of the same generation can amount to a family feud. The Court observed that where the facts of a case attract different categories under the same Guidelines, the category more beneficial to the convict must be applied.
Case Title: Kannamwar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 464
The Bombay High Court has directed the Municipal Commissioner to fix accountability of Ward Officers and their subordinate officers for failing to prevent or clear litter, trash and unauthorised dumping of garbage on public streets and pavements. The Court also called upon the Municipal Corporation to activate a mechanism for launching prosecutions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the MMC Act and environmental laws against persons involved in illegal dumping.
Case Title: Vivek Prakash Padalwar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 465
The Bombay High Court has held that benefits granted on the basis of a caste certificate cannot be withdrawn until 30 days after rejection of an appeal challenging its invalidation by the Scrutiny Committee. The Court, relying on Section 10(5) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, directed that the benefits granted to the Petitioner could not be withdrawn while his appeal against invalidation of his Tribe Certificate was pending.
Case Title: Mukesh W Siyal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 466
The Bombay High Court has quashed a chargesheet against a man accused of offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the IPC, observing that mobile phone footage and WhatsApp conversations prima facie showed that the complainant-police constable had demanded ₹300 from him for returning his driving licence. The Court observed that a false case of criminal intimidation had thereafter been foisted on the accused, and found the prosecution story “completely unbelievable” and “false and concocted”.
Bombay High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Noise Pollution Caused Due To Religious Processions
Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 467
The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 21) took suo motu cognisance of the issue of noise pollution caused particularly during religious processions in Mumbai and other cities across Maharashtra. A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale has ordered the Maharashtra Government to spell out what steps it has taken particularly for containing Noise Pollution caused due to DJs during the religious processions.
Case Title: Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha vs Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 468
Observing that the power to arrest is a 'drastic action', the Bombay High Court has made it clear to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) sleuths that once they invoke powers under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to record statements, summon an individual etc, they must first satisfy the said provision and subsequently proceed to invoke powers to arrest under section 19.
Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 469
Festivals in Maharashtra would henceforth be celebrated in a more 'civilised' manner, as the Bombay High Court said on Tuesday (September 22) while imposing a total ban on use of firecrackers, laser light, loud music, any musical instrument causing noise pollution, during religious processions irrespective of religion and festivals across the State.
Case Title: Sunil Sundar Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a senior citizen running private tuition classes, who was booked under Sections 4, 8, 10 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, observing that an Instagram chat relied upon by the prosecution could not be the sole material for denying bail. The Court noted that the chat did not explicitly describe the alleged offence or state its time, place or nature.
Case Title: Kaustubh Shivkumar Vibhute vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 471
Observing that 'courts' cannot be used as 'recovery mechanisms', the Bombay High Court recently opined that courts must impose costs in case of quashing First Information Report (FIR) on mutual consent, particularly in commercial and matrimonial disputes.
Case Title: Sanjay Narang vs Joint Sub-Registrar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
The Bombay High Court has held that the Collector cannot insist on a 'No-Objection' from a co-operative housing society as a pre-condition for registration of a Consent Decree, when there is no statutory provision, rule, regulation or notification mandating such requirement. The Court observed that the Respondents' stance amounted to an obstructionist approach in the execution and implementation of a legally binding decree.
Case Title: Tansukhlal Pannalal Jain vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
The Bombay High Court has held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint and proceeds under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage and invoke Section 156(3) to direct police investigation. The Court observed that the Magistrate's order directing investigation under Section 156(3) after calling for a report under Section 202 was contrary to the scheme of the Cr.P.C.
Case Title: Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 474
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge by farmers to the selection of “Site 1A” for the proposed Greenfield Airport at Purandar, Pune, holding that the choice of site, alignment and project feasibility fall within the domain of experts and the State's policy decision. The Court observed that it would not substitute its own assessment for that of technical experts or Government authorities in the absence of bad faith, colourable exercise of executive power, statutory violation or non-compliance with environmental norms.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctors Booked For Switching Off Oxygen Supply
Case Title: Dr Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 475
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 23) refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against three men of the same family, booked for switching off the oxygen supply of an ICU ward in a hospital in Pune. Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale said that there was a prima facie strong case against the three men, all of whom are practising doctors.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Jitendra @ Pappu Babulal Shinde
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 476
Before hearing the final arguments in the appeals filed by the convicts in the infamous Kopardi gang rape case challenging their death sentence, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 22) said it will first visit the spot where the minor girl was allegedly ravished and killed by the convicts.
Preventive Detention Cannot Rest On Bare Assumption That Detenu Will Obtain Bail: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan vs Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 477
The Bombay High Court has held that preventive detention cannot be sustained where the Detaining Authority's satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail was based only on the assumption that the offence was not compulsorily punishable with death sentence. The Court observed that such satisfaction was not based on cogent material relating to the investigation.
Case Title: M/s. Pharmed Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
The Bombay High Court has held that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) could not impose a blanket price ceiling on a formulation without following the mechanism prescribed under paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO 1995). The Court held that the NPPA's notification dated January 30, 2009 was ultra vires the DPCO 1995 and quashed the same, along with the demand notices seeking recovery of alleged overcharged amounts.
Case Title: Sadashiv Ambadas Gayake vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
A complainant filing number of proceedings as per law against someone cannot be booked under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which penalises abetment to suicide only because the proposed accused, later on commits suicide, held the Bombay High Court recently while observing that if such a complaint in such circumstances is prosecuted, people involved in criminal activities will never face action for their wrongdoings.
Case Title: A vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
The Bombay High Court recently while denying bail to a man booked for sexually assaulting a minor girl from his neighbourhood, observed that granting him bail would send a wrong message to the society at large as he has decimated the sanctity of the pure relationship between neighbourhood uncle and a minor girl, who are like a father and daughter.
Case Title: Kalim Isaq Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 29) held that merely producing an arrested person before a court within 24 hours is not sufficient but the said person must be produced before a 'nearest' Magistrate. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale therefore granted bail to one Kalim Shaikh, who was arrested from Barshi in Solapur district and brought to Mira Road, nearby Mumbai and produced here.
Unregistered Partnership Firms Can Claim Statutory Tenancy Rights Under Bombay Rent Act: High Court
Case Title: All India Travel Services vs Ashok K Upadhayay
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
The Bombay High Court has held that an unregistered partnership firm in occupation of premises as a licensee on February 1, 1973, can claim the benefit of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947. The Court observed that the right conferred by Section 15-A is statutory in nature and the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 applies to enforcement of contractual rights and not statutory rights.
Case Title: Narayan Tatu Rane vs Vinayak Bhaurao Raut
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 29) rejected an election petition filed by Vinayak Raut, a candidate from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Faction), who challenged the election of BJP leader and Union Home Minister Narayan Rane to the 18th Lok Sabha from the Sindhudurg Constituency.
Bombay High Court Grants 8-Month Interim Bail To Woman Accused In Drugs Case To Care For Newborn
Case Title: X vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
The Bombay High Court recently granted eight months interim bail to a woman booked in a case under the stringent Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, after noting that her prematurely born eight-month-old daughter is in a precarious condition.
Case Title: Lawyers Collective vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
The Bombay High Court has allowed the Lawyers Collective an opportunity to file a compounding application in relation to the offence under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (FCRA). The Court observed that once the requirements under Rule 21 of the FCRA Rules, 2011 are complied with, the right to seek compounding cannot be denied.
Case Title: Serum Institute of India vs Yohan Tengra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 29) directed X Corp (formerly Twitter) to delete the objectionable content posted on its platform by certain persons against Covishield vaccine manufacturer Serum Institute of India (SII) and its CEO Adar Poonawala.
Other Developments:
The Maharashtra Government on Monday (August 31) told the Bombay High Court that the nearly 17-day hunger strike observed by tribal students at Pune's Manjari area over poor facilities at the Ashram Schools across the State, particularly the ones in tribal belt, has come an end, after the representatives of the protesting students met Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 2) ordered CBI investigation in the death of Disha Salian, former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, who died in alleged mysterious circumstances by falling from the 14th floor of a high-rise in suburban Malad in June 2020.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 2) directed the Maharashtra Government to file an affidavit clarifying when exactly it lodged the First Information Report (FIR) against former MP and now BJP leader Navneet Rana and her MLA husband Ravi Rana, in connection with their 2022 call for reciting Hanuman Chalisa outside the personal residence of then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.
Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi Sworn-In As Chief Justice Of Bombay High Court
Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi on Wednesday (September 9) took oath of the office of Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Justice Tripathi, the senior-most judge of the Allahabad High Court was recommended for the post of Bombay High Court's Chief Justice, by the Supreme Court collegium, last month
In what could spell troubles for Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar's son and Rajya Sabha MP Parth Pawar, the Bombay High Court has sought to know from the State Police as to why he has not been named as an accused in the Mundhwa land deal case.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (September 10) directed 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, to make Central Government a party to their petitions.
The Bombay High Court on Friday deprecated the decision of the Maharashtra Government to impose a blanket ban on the sale of alcohol, particularly in the Pune, during the 12 days of Ganesh Chaturthi festival. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna said that if alcohol is banned for so many days, hospitals will get "flooded" as regular and habitual drinkers may suffer serious health issues.
After Bombay High Court Rap, Pune Collector Withdraws 12-Day Ban On Alcohol Sale
After being pulled up by the Bombay High Court earlier today, Pune Collector has withdrawn its 12 day ban on alcohol sale and consumption in the district. A fresh order will now be issued wherein only September 14 (First day of Ganesh Festival) & September 25 (Immersion Day) will be dry days
Bombay High Court Adjourns Sine Die Petition Filed By Kunal Kamra Against IT Rules, SAHYOG Portal
The Bombay High Court on Friday (September 11) adjourned sine die the petitions filed by Comedian Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani 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.
A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion (MFR) Act 2026, arguing that the law, which is claimed to be an 'anti-conversion' legislation, violates fundamental rights of citizens.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1960 contenting that it criminalise persons living in conditions of poverty, homelessness and destitution.
The Deputy Mayor of Malegaon Municipal Corporation (MMC) has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the communications issued by the Maharashtra Police asking her to remove the portrait of Tipu Sultan, which she has displayed in her office along with 11 national leaders including Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Shivaji Maharaj, Subhash Chandra Bose and several others.
A new three judge bench of the Bombay High Court will commence hearing afresh petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024 which provides for 10% to the Maratha Community in education and public service in the State.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court which highlights the 'friction' between religious mandals and civil groups over the noise pollution caused by DJs, loudspeakers, dhol, etc. during the ongoing Ganesh Chaturthi festival, particularly in Pune district and seeks strict compliance with a 2016 judgment of the Court by which the State was mandatorily ordered to ensure no noise pollution is caused during religious festivals.
Plea In Bombay High Court To Quash 14 Orders Passed By CEC Gyanesh Kumar Despite Objections Of 2 ECs
A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court challenges 14 actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar despite recorded objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, raising questions over the collective functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday (September 28) refused to grant an urgent hearing to a writ petition challenging the 14 actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, allegedly despite objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 28) agreed to hear the petition claiming numerous flaws in the implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Maharashtra and posted the matter for hearing on October 5. The petition filed on behalf of two businessmen, was mentioned before a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna stating that an important issue is raised in the said petition as it concerns the rights of citizens.
After a special court granted bail to dismissed cop Sachin Waze in the infamous Antilia Bomb Scare case, at least three judges of the Bombay High Court have recused from hearing the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the bail order.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed the special court's order granting bail to dismissed police officer Sachin Waze in the Antilia bomb scare case. The development comes in an appeal preferred by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A writ petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court highlighting a major deviation from the rules which can compromise the safety of women in Maharashtra as the Regional Transport Offices (RTOs) have been approving and registering public service vehicles such as buses, cabs, autorickshaws etc even if they have not installed the Vehicle Location Tracking Devices (VLTD).