Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 488Nominal Index:SSD vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305Arti Varun Kejriwal vs Vandana Vinay Awatramani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 306Shashikant M Ramane vs Joint Registrar...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
Nominal Index:
Judgments / Final Orders
Case Title: SSD vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303
A First Information Report (FIR) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the family members of a woman's second husband cannot be sustained in law, if her first marriage subsists, held the Bombay High Court recently while quashing a criminal case lodged against the family members and a friend of a man.
Case Title: Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304
The exemption given to Sikhs from wearing helmets is not based on religion or caste but is a 'reasonable' classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore does not violate any fundamental rights, held the Bombay High Court recently. Sitting at the Nagpur bench, the division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta dismissed a petition filed by a law student, who challenged the exemption granted to Sikh community members from wearing helmets, which is otherwise mandatory for every citizen under section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA).
Case Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
Merely because a citizen is opposing certain decisions of the Union Government and raising slogans against it cannot be a ground to extern a citizen from any area, held the Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 2). Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar came down heavily on the Mumbai Police for passing an externment order against one Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary (49), the general secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who had been actively organising Morchas and Dharnas against various decisions of the Central Government— including amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Gyanvapi Masjid controversy.
Case Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 2) orally commented that "horse trading" was going on in the entire State of Maharashtra, and that a political leader can get the criminal cases against oneself closed by joining the "washing machine", in an oblique reference to the ruling party.
Case Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
The Bombay High Court has held that a person cannot be externed merely for organising protests against government policies, observing that such action infringes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to live with dignity under the Constitution.
Case Title: Arti Varun Kejriwal vs Vandana Vinay Awatramani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere execution of a family arrangement does not, by itself, establish that the properties dealt with therein are Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties. The Court observed that a family arrangement cannot be elevated into proof of the existence of an HUF in the absence of foundational evidence establishing the existence of such an HUF and an ancestral nucleus.
Case Title: Shashikant M Ramane vs Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
The Bombay High Court has upheld the disqualification of members of the managing committee of a co-operative housing society for deliberately failing to furnish documents sought by another member of the society within the time prescribed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court held that while substantial compliance with the statutory requirement may, in appropriate cases, avoid disqualification, the benefit cannot be extended where there is a deliberate refusal to supply documents despite repeated directions from the statutory authorities.
Case Title: Elite Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Kunj Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere act of providing inaccurate or incomplete information does not amount to "misrepresentation" under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court observed that de-registration of a society can be ordered only where the registration itself was obtained through misrepresentation by the applicants, and not on the basis of subsequent events or an alleged error in the Registrar's decision.
Case Title: Pune Housing And Area Development Board vs Vithal Shripati Ladkat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
The Bombay High Court has held that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act is empowered to examine whether the amount claimed by the Housing Board is "lawfully due" and is not confined merely to ordering eviction. The Court observed that an allottee who receives a tenement under a government quota is not exempt from payment of the price and other lawfully recoverable components, including capitalised interest.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
A 21-year-old woman, being an adult is legally competent to decide where she wishes to reside, whom she must marry etc and thus, her parents and the State cannot compel her to make a choice against her wish, the Bombay High Court held while directing the Mumbai Police not to entertain a 'missing persons' complaint about a young Muslim woman, who left her parents' home from Hyderabad to avoid marrying as per their choice.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Chetan Yashwantrao Pagare
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
The Bombay High Court recently, while commuting the death sentence of two men to 30 years jail term— for kidnapping and killing a young boy, observed that the two convicts were 'typical young men' who were 'baffled' as their plan to become wealthy did not work and so for 'immediate solution' they killed the boy.
Case Title: Suka Mahadu Khade vs Bababai Tukaram Shevre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
The Bombay High Court has exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to dismiss a revision application pending before the Revenue Minister, observing that such a course was necessary to subserve the ends of justice and curtail further litigation. The Court upheld the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner refusing to recognise the petitioners' claim over tribal land, finding that the transaction relied upon by them was unsupported by credible evidence.
Case Title: Dharampal Sharma vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
The Bombay High Court has held that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a land conversion order validly passed under statutory rules. The Court observed that a Government Resolution cannot retrospectively override the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and Leasehold Lands into Occupancy Class-I Lands) Rules, 2019 or defeat vested rights accrued upon compliance with the statutory scheme.
Case Title: Zal Sam Cooper vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
The Bombay High Court has held that the financial burden on a Municipal Council cannot be a ground to deny just compensation to a landowner whose property has been reserved and continuously used as a Development Plan (DP) Road without acquisition. The Court observed that constitutional entitlement to just compensation cannot be made contingent upon the magnitude of the financial liability that may fall upon the acquiring authority.
Case Title: Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Vishwas Yeshwant Dhomse
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
The Bombay High Court has held that dismissal from service is a shockingly disproportionate punishment for the misconduct of unauthorized absence for 240 days, particularly where the employee had rendered long years of service, and no other serious charges ultimately survived. The Court substituted the punishment of dismissal with a lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
Title: Preity G Zinta vs Google LLC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
The Bombay High Court in an interim order on Wednesday (July 8) directed taken down of objectionable content including deepfake images, AI and superimposed visuals and morphed pictures of actor Priety Zinta. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar in his order, held that the material highlighted by Zinta indeed prejudiced her public image.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rohidas Ambadas Chavan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
The Bombay High Court has held that there is no presumption that a Government doctor has a private medical practice or earns additional income therefrom. The Court observed that the burden lies upon the claimant to establish, by cogent evidence, that he was actually engaged in private practice and earning income from it before claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on that basis.
Case Title: Dr. Satish Bhide vs Ravindra M. Pande
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
The Bombay High Court has held that a technical shortfall in payment of one month's wages under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be used as a shield by an employee found guilty of grave misconduct such as corruption and forgery. The Court observed that the protection under Section 33(2)(b) is intended to soften the rigours of dismissal and not to create technical grounds for reinstating employees whose serious misconduct stands proved.
Case Title: Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
Assaulting a suspect for a confessional statement would never be an act in discharge of official duty of any police officer, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to discharge three policeman, who had allegedly assaulted a man— forcing him to confess to a murder offence.
Case Title: Rameshkumar Hanjarimal Rathod vs Smt. Kantabai Lalchand Gandhi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
The Bombay High Court has held that a First Appellate Court is empowered under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the trial court even in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the plaintiff. The Court observed that where the issue under Order 41 Rule 33 is specifically raised before the appellate court, the parties are heard, and the court consciously exercises its jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 33, such exercise of power is legally sustainable.
Case Title: Debashish Devnarayan Ghosh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
The Bombay High Court has held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate or determine the caste or tribe status of a person while exercising powers under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court observed that the determination of Scheduled Tribe status lies exclusively with the Caste Scrutiny Committee, and a revenue officer cannot deprive a person or their family of the statutory protection available to Scheduled Tribes by recording a finding on caste status.
Case Title: Altaf Shaikh vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
A family discord between a man's parents and his wife is not a sufficient ground for him to stop paying for the maintenance and medical expenses of his own parents, held the Bombay High Court recently while upholding an order of a Senior Citizens' Tribunal directing a man, who worked in Dubai to pay Rs 8,000 as maintenance to his old parents.
Case Title: Shreesh Kumar vs Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
The Bombay High Court has held that a Co-operative Court exercising powers under Section 94(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 can implead a person who is not covered by the categories enumerated under Section 91(1)(a) to (e), if such person's presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the dispute. The Court, however, cautioned that such power is not unbridled and cannot be exercised to enlarge the scope of the dispute or bring within the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction matters which it is otherwise incompetent to adjudicate.
Case Title: Gurbir Singh vs Samar Mohammed Khadas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
The Bombay High Court has refused to stay the expulsion of a member from the Mumbai Press Club, holding that it is the prerogative of the Club to determine what conduct brings the institution into disrepute. The Court observed that where the Managing Committee has acted within its jurisdiction and followed the procedure prescribed by the Club's bye-laws, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Club on whether a member's conduct is disreputable.
Case Title: M/s. Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. East Tradvest Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere filing of a Vakalatnama or an affidavit-in-reply to an interim application does not, by itself, amount to a waiver of service of writ of summons or trigger the limitation prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for filing a written statement. The Court observed that the period for filing the written statement commences only upon proper service of the writ of summons, an express waiver thereof, or an order of the Court directing the defendant to file the written statement.
Case Title: Arkade Developers Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) keeping an application for an Occupation Certificate (OC) pending solely on the basis of alleged oral instructions issued by the Additional Chief Secretary. The Court observed that statutory authorities are required to act strictly in accordance with law and that oral instructions are inconsistent with the principles of transparency, accountability and the rule of law.
Case Title: Shakir Jamil Ahmed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that an oral waiver of the right available under Section 50 of the Act is not sufficient. The Court observed that where an accused elects not to exercise the right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, such waiver must be reduced into writing and duly signed by the accused.
Case Title: Sachin Shivram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
The Bombay High Court recently granted bail and suspended the lifetime rigorous imprisonment imposed on a woman and her alleged lover, both of whom were convicted for killing the woman's son as he allegedly learnt about their affair. Sitting at the Kolhapur bench, a division bench of Justice Milind Jadhav and Justice Nandesh Deshpande noted that the motive attributed to the convicts -Ashwini Chavan and Sachin Kumbhar - was that they had an extra marital affair and the duo killed Chavan's 10-year-old boy on the ground that he learnt about their affair and would have disclosed the same to his father (Chavan's husband).
Case Title: Khushbu Iddrish Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
Holding that police officers cannot ride roughshod over statutory safeguards in the name of investigation, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has ruled that police entering a woman's bedroom at night without a lady constable and seizing her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) amounted to a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
Observing that no public interest can be served by keeping information relating to a person's alleged involvement in a crime alive on the internet once the proceedings arising from it have been quashed, the Bombay High Court recently directed the Registrar General to mask the identity of a litigant who had invoked his "right to be forgotten".
Case Title: Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. vs Sunita Dileep Nevatia
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
The Bombay High Court has held that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession after alleged dispossession otherwise than in due course of law is maintainable before the Civil Court even if the parties stand in the relationship of licensor and licensee. The Court held that the existence of a licensor-licensee relationship does not by itself attract the bar under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, where the suit is founded on alleged unlawful dispossession and satisfies the requirements of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Case Title: SSNA vs SAAR
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
The Bombay High Court has held that a Magistrate can invoke the search provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to recover a child allegedly taken away by his father from the mother's custody by force.
Case Title: Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Punita Capoor
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
The Bombay High Court has held that the grant of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by the High Court before transfer of a suit does not prevent the Bombay City Civil Court from examining the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh after the suit is transferred on account of enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court observed that, by virtue of Section 4A(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, the City Civil Court is required to treat the transferred suit as if it had been originally instituted before it and is competent to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it finds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title: Ravindra Kini vs Municipal Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
Observing that now-a-days flat owners often carry out some alterations to cover open terraces or modify their rooms, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to come up with comprehensive guidelines specifying which kind of alterations in individual flats or buildings are permissible. The High Court has also asked the State to come up with some online portal so that citizens can simply upload documents relating to their proposed alterations and permissions can be granted by the civic authorities, at the earliest.
Case Title: Neville Tuli vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court has held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, mandating an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance of a complaint applies to prosecutions under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The Court observed that the Special Court could not take cognizance of an offence under the SEBI Act without first hearing the accused.
Case Title: JPPP vs PVP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
A woman, who conceals her first marriage and performs a second marriage despite the subsistence of the first marriage, cannot seek maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 CrPC, held the Bombay High Court recently. Single-judge Justice Milind Sathaye in an order passed on July 16, dismissed the appeal filed by a woman, who had challenged a lower court's order which had directed her 'second husband' to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 1,000 only to her son from their void marriage and no separate maintenance was ordered for her.
Case Title: Saidpur Jute Company Limited vs National Co-operative Consumer's Federation of India Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
The Bombay High Court has held that the National Co-operative Consumers' Federation of India Ltd. (NCCF), a multi-state co-operative society, is functioning as an implementing agency of the Central Government, and qualifies as a "Public Sector Undertaking" for the purposes of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Court observed that the expression "Public Sector Undertaking" is not confined to statutory corporations or government companies and must be interpreted in the context of the Rent Act, keeping in view the public character of the entity's functions and the object of excluding financially capable tenants from rent control protection.
Case Title: Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid @ Asif Shaikh Rasheed vs Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
A candidate performing Dua (prayers/worship) during a political congregation for his victory in elections and the audience responding with an 'Amen' does not amount to a 'corrupt practice' of soliciting votes in the name of religion, the Bombay High Court held recently while upholding the election of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) candidate's victory in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections.
Case Title: RPKS vs PKJS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
A woman who earns 'substantially' more than her husband and lives in a foreign country cannot seek maintenance from him only on the ground that the cost of living abroad is 'exorbitant', held the Bombay High Court recently while rejecting a US-based woman's plea seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 1 lakh from her husband.
Case Title: RYJ vs Principal Secretary, School Education Department
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
A child seeking admission in a school under the Right To Education (RTE) Act if furnishes the caste certificate of his or her mother, cannot be denied the quota facility by the authorities only on the ground of failure to produce caste certificate of his or her deceased father, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 22).
Case Title: Ajay Kisan Dungarshi @ Pintu vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Government to place a life convict under the 26-years imprisonment category, after noting that he had killed a woman, who had refused to marry her, in a brutal manner. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ashish Chavan noted that the convict had killed the woman in an exceptionally brutal manner.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court has transferred the investigation into a POCSO case to the Maharashtra State CID after finding glaring lapses in the manner in which the probe was conducted by the local police. The Court observed that the investigation disclosed a disturbing lack of awareness of the mandatory safeguards under the POCSO Act, including disclosure of the victim's identity, recording of the victim's statement at the police station, and complete failure to maintain a legally compliant case diary.
Case Title: Saili Durgadas Acharya vs Nandan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
The Bombay High Court has held that the powers conferred upon the Registrar under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 are supervisory in nature and cannot be exercised to adjudicate disputes relating to title or ownership of property. The Court observed that where performance of an act requires an adjudicatory order by the competent authority, the Deputy Registrar cannot bypass that process by issuing directives to a society under Section 79(2) of the Act.
Income Tax Set-Off Rules Can't Be Applied To Reduce Motor Accident Compensation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Dr. Anagha Bhupendra Kothadiya vs Motiram Govind Budhwani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Bombay High Court has held that loss computed under the head "Income from House Property" under the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be set off against income under the head "Business or Profession" while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court observed that the Income-tax Act and the Motor Vehicles Act operate in distinct fields, and the mechanism of set-off under the Income-tax Act cannot be mechanically applied to reduce compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Case Title: Paartha Sharathi vs Competent Authority, Reserve Bank of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
The Bombay High Court has rejected a litigant's demand that a Judge recuse from hearing a matter merely because, while at the Bar, he had appeared as counsel for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Court observed that accepting such a contention as a general principle would make it impossible for any Judge who had represented the Government or public bodies during legal practice to hear matters involving such entities after elevation to the Bench, a proposition contrary to settled principles of law.
Case Title: Mehta Impex Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Bombay High Court has quashed communications directing mutation of certain Wakf properties as "enemy property" in the name of the Custodian, holding that such action cannot be taken without first determining the jurisdictional facts through an inquiry and affording the affected parties an opportunity of hearing. The Court further held that Section 22A of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 cannot be construed to nullify or override judicial orders passed by a High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s SMS Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
The Bombay High Court recently while issuing notice to the Maharashtra Government and also the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in a plea challenging the 'sudden' stoppage of a multi-storey parking project near the city's famous Mumba Devi Temple, observed that time has come for making government servants pay damages to the construction companies from their own salaries and not from the State Exchequer.
Case Title: Binod Sitaram Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
Mere allegations that an individual's arrest violated the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, Joginder Kumar vs State of UP and other decisions do not attract civil or criminal contempt against Police, the Bombay High Court held on Tuesday (July 28). A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait Sethna refused to initiate contempt action against Mumbai Police officers over the arrest of a man in a case registered under the Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Wu Jyun Lin vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 28) quashed and set aside an order directing a Taiwan national to leave India at the earliest, for allegedly breaching his 'employment' Visa by simultaneously pursuing two educational courses and re-entering India now on a 'student' Visa for pursuing his law course at city's prominent - Government Law College (GLC).
Case Title: Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside externment order passed against a leader of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who was ousted from the city for participating in various agitations protesting the decisions of the Central Government and also for sloganeering against the demolition of Babri Masjid.
Case Title: Shashi Kiran Shetty vs Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court recently restrained media houses and certain YouTube channels from posting anything defamatory or using words such as "unlucky, haunted, cursed or ill-omened" about the iconic 'Ashirwad' bungalow formerly owned by Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor passed the order while hearing the suit filed by businessman Shashi Kiran Shetty, who now owns the bungalow situated at Mumbai's posh Carter Road in Bandra.
Case Title: Maheshkumar B Patel vs Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
The Bombay High Court has held that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit an advocate from representing his or her own family members in legal proceedings. The Court observed that Rule 6 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette merely prohibits an advocate from appearing before a court, tribunal or authority where a relative is a member of that adjudicatory body, and cannot be construed as a bar against representing relatives as clients.
'Passing Eviction Orders Without Enforcement Machinery Renders Law Meaningless': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mumtaz Ahmad Shah vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Bombay High Court has held that merely passing eviction orders without providing an effective mechanism for their implementation renders the statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 meaningless. The Court further observed that the Competent Authority is under a statutory obligation to enforce eviction orders and cannot refuse to do so on the ground that it lacks the necessary machinery or that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) is unable to provide assistance.
Case Title: Narendra Subhash Pelmahale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court has held that where the office of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat was reserved for the Women category in the immediately preceding term, it must ordinarily revert to the Open (General) category in the succeeding term in compliance with the statutory principle of rotation under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. The Court further observed that adherence to the rotation requirement does not dilute the legislative mandate of 50% reservation for women but merely regulates the manner in which such reservation is implemented across successive election terms.
Case Title: Kannamwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Bombay High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to formulate a comprehensive ward-wise cleanliness framework and consider linking the performance of Ward Officers in maintaining sanitation standards to their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The Court further observed that Mumbai's recurring plastic waste crisis, particularly garbage washed ashore during the monsoon, demands strict enforcement of municipal laws, technological monitoring, civic sensitisation and greater accountability of municipal officials.
Case Title: Ananta Rajaram Walunj vs Grupo Antolin Pune (P) Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
The Bombay High Court has held that making an incorrect claim regarding travel distance for transport allowance cannot, by itself, be equated with misappropriation of the employer's funds. The Court further observed that where the misconduct is accompanied by mitigating circumstances, and the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the charge proved, judicial interference with the penalty is warranted.
Case Title: Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
The Bombay High Court has upheld the removal from service of a Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable after personally viewing a viral video of him allegedly inappropriately touching a woman passenger at Kalyan railway station in 2018. Holding that the video clearly established his intention to outrage the woman's modesty, the Court observed that despite being entrusted with protecting passengers, he himself became "the perpetrator of a shameful act."
Case Title: Vignesh Ramesh Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
The Bombay High Court has held that the "subjective satisfaction" required for passing an externment order under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against a gang or body of persons is fundamentally different from the satisfaction required under Section 56 for externment of an individual. The Court observed that while Section 55 requires the authority to be satisfied about the activities of the gang or body of persons as a whole, Section 56 is concerned with the conduct and activities of the individual sought to be externed.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Atikurrahaman Lais Mohammad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court has held that a private motor garage is a "public place" within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as members of the public have a right of access to such premises for purposes like vehicle repairs and related services. The Court observed that a vehicle stationed in a garage for repairs continues to be in "use" under the Act and, therefore, an insurer remains liable for third-party claims arising from an accident during such repairs.
Case Title: Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
The Bombay High Court has held that Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention would not apply where the competent authority of the receiving country has categorically stated that the adoption is an "expatriate adoption" falling outside its regulated inter-country adoption process.
Case Title: Kannamwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concern over the reckless conduct of citizens in indiscriminately dumping garbage and plastic waste on public streets, observing that such behaviour is causing serious damage to the environment and placing undue pressure on the municipal machinery. The Court further observed that while citizens must inculcate civic discipline, which is the basic duty of every citizen towards society and paramount for the protection of the ecology and the environment.
Case Title: Kiran Vasantrao Rajwade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
The Bombay High Court has restrained three members of the Nashik Caste Scrutiny Committee from discharging their duties, observing that their conduct in disregarding several orders passed by the High Court and setting at naught caste validity certificates granted pursuant to those orders raised a grave doubt as to whether they were competent to discharge such important statutory functions. The Court further observed that such conduct showed gross impropriety, discarded the rule of law, and may also amount to contempt of the several orders passed by the High Court.
Case Title: Nitin Jairam Gadkari vs Meta Platforms
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 5) ordered takedown of deepfake, AI videos linking Union Minister Nitin Gadkari with the controversial Ethanol-blended fuel policy. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor has ordered pulling down of all the content as highlighted by Gadkari in his suit, after finding the material to be "per se defamatory."
Case Title: Prasad Kashiram Bade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
The Bombay High Court recently dropped the sexual harassment charge under stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a 25-year-old boy, who was booked for allegedly slapping and abusing a minor girl in filthy language. Single-judge Justice Shivkumar Dige noted that the incident took place in 2020, when the applicant - Prasad Bade was 19 year old and the victim was below 18. He was booked for following the girl while she was returning to her home and then abusing the victim in filthy language and slapping across her face over some "childish" fight between their friends circle.
Case Title: MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
The Bombay High Court has held that a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable against the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of a Government company merely because the appointment is made by the President of India or the company is government-controlled. The Court further observed that for a writ of quo warranto to lie, the office in question must be a "public office" created by law and vested with sovereign governmental functions, which the office of CMD of MOIL does not satisfy.
Case Title: State of Goa vs Tarun Tejpal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
While convicting former Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 rape case, on August 6, the Bombay High Court bench at Goa, busted the 'stereotypical myth' that victims of sexual offences must behave or conduct themselves in a particular manner and behave like a 'perfect victim' by exhibiting vulnerability for the courts to 'believe' her woes.
Case Title: Court on its own motion vs Ramesh Sukrya Mhatre
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 07) granted bail to Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) corporator Ramesh Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting three on duty doctors at a civic-run hospital in Dombivli. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad also granted bail to three of Mhatre's associates, who took part in the assault. The court has imposed stern conditions on them, including that they must stay out of Maharashtra till the chargesheet is filed.
Case Title: Chaitanya Suresh Kambli vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 368
The Bombay High Court has held that neither the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 nor the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 contemplate permanently debarring an auditor from future empanelment merely because his name was removed from an earlier panel. The Court further held that a clause in the Commissioner's Circular imposing such a permanent disqualification is unsustainable and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Dr Santaji Krishna Shinde vs Shivaji University Kolhapur
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 369
Permitting one educational institution to question the degrees conferred by another such institution would lead to anarchy and chaos in the education system of the country, held the Bombay High Court while quashing orders passed by the popular Shivaji University in Kolhapur, which refused to approve the recruitment of a Computer Science professor on the ground that the PhD degree he held was from a university in Rajasthan, which could not be considered to be equivalent to its own such degree.
Case Title: Mughda Sahal vs Senior Citizen Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 370
The Bombay High Court has held that an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder is entitled to invoke the remedies available under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, if the other statutory conditions are satisfied. The Court observed that the beneficial object of the Act would be better served by adopting an interpretation that advances the protection and welfare of parents and senior citizens, and accordingly disagreed with the contrary view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Dephny Gladys Lobo vs Assistant Commissioner of President, Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal (WP No.6720 of 2016).
Case Title: Project Revolt LLP vs Bureau of Indian Standards
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371
The Bombay High Court has held that helmets which do not conform to the Indian Standards prescribed under the Quality Control Order, 2020 cannot be permitted to be sold or used after June 1, 2021, even if they were imported before the said date. The Court, however, permitted that the seized helmets be returned to the petitioner subject to the condition that they shall be destructed/disposed of in such a manner which is permitted in law.
Case Title: Rohit Abhijit Oze vs State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition (Stamp) 13733 of 2026]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 372
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 25-year-old student for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that subjecting him to a criminal trial when his breath alcohol reading was only 0.1 mg above the statutory limit would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Case Title: Prashant Vasantrao Salunkhe vs Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 373
The Bombay High Court recently constituted a committee of five advocates to visit the 12th Century built historic Kopeshwar Temple in Khidrapur, Kolhapur and conduct an independent fact-finding exercise to ascertain the present status of the temple's infrastructure so that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could be asked to take proper steps for the resurrection of the said temple.
Case Title: Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 374
The Bombay High Court has clarified that the Supreme Court judgment providing "one-time protection" to law students, who were prevented from appearing in their exams during the academic year of 2025-2026, will apply to students missing any of the semester-end exams and not be confined only to "final exams."
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Anil Shridhar Gaikwad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 375
The Bombay High Court recently held that a minor rape victim's testimony cannot be discarded just because she could not properly describe the sexual act to which she was subjected to. The High Court therefore, reversed a trial court's judgment and convicted a man for raping a minor girl in a 2012 case.
Case Title: Om Education Society vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 376
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Government to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing reimbursement mechanism under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court suggested examination of the issues of prescription of definite timelines at every stage of processing reimbursement proposals and the adequacy of a monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with such timelines.
Case Title: Rohan P. Pai Dhungat vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 377
A condition mandating the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to opine with 'absolute certainty' on a prisoner's potential to not re-offend if releases from jail would result in a situation wherein a convicted person would never see freedom and would rather die within the prison walls, held the Bombay High Court while quashing Goa Government's order refusing to allow premature release of a law student, who was convicted in a kidnapping and murder case dating back to 2006.
Case Title: Maijabeen Abdul Quaiyum Khan vs M/s. Ajit Developer Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 378
The Bombay High Court has held that an objection to the execution of a decree on the ground that it is a nullity by reason of abatement of the suit has to be adjudicated by the executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC and cannot be raised by way of a separate suit. The Court observed that Section 47 and Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 vest the powers in executing court to decide the question of undivided right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs in the subject property.
Case Title: Ashok Gangadhar Puranik vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 379
The Bombay High Court has expressed its displeasure at the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) for attempting to avoid payment of compensation to the petitioners. The Court treated the assurance of payment given by the CIDCO as an undertaking given to the Court and directed the State authorities to disburse the amount to the petitioners.
Case Title: Shivaji Maruti Kamble vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 380
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against three members of a housing society, who had forged a false RT-PCR Covid19 'negative' report for themselves, to ease and evade security protocols of their society. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav while quashing the FIR against Shivaji Kamble, Prathamesh Parab and Vikrant Tambe, observed that the trio prepared the fabricated Covid19 test reports in view of the exigency prevailing during the days of the Covid19 led lockdown restrictions.
Case Title: Villayati Ram Mittal vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
The Bombay High Court has held that once a document is notarised, neither the Notary nor any party is permitted to replace any page, and that replacing any page amounts to tampering with the original pleadings served upon the defendants. The Court observed that no party can be permitted to tamper with pleadings and documents in such a manner and described the conduct of the plaintiff, advocate on record and Notary as “shocking and unacceptable”.
Bombay High Court Directs BMC To Mandatorily Mention Appeal Remedy In Disciplinary Orders
Case Title: Shashikant Anant Kale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
The Bombay High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation to specifically mention the remedy of appeal, along with the relevant provision under the Rules, in every disciplinary order passed against its employees. The Court observed that the 2015 Rules provide a mechanism of appeal against an order imposing the penalty of termination or removal from service, and the State Government cannot be treated as the Appellate Authority under Section 520B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
Case Title: Rahul Ganesh Mehta vs Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 383
The Bombay High Court has held that a development agreement under which the developer is to develop the entire plot, hand over 50% of the area to the owner and retain the balance 50% cannot be construed as a pure construction contract for applying Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court observed that when there was no clause in the agreement requiring satisfaction of the plaintiff's credentials as a developer, the plaintiff was not required to prove the same.
Case Title: Jhang Union International LLC FZ vs LPG Amir Gas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
The Bombay High Court has issued urgent directions for immediate discharge of LPG from the arrested vessel LPG Amir Gas at Jaigarh Port, in view of the risk of fire or explosion and the “catastrophic consequences” that a large-scale release of LPG could result in. The Court further directed the concerned disaster management authorities and the Director General of Shipping to extend full cooperation and assistance for safe discharge of the cargo and to plan for its discharge in case the security amount ordered by the Court was not deposited.
Case Title: Sunil Dnyandev Kamble vs Ramesh Anandrao Bagwe
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 385
The Bombay High Court has held that non-supply of information sought under the RTI Act after the declaration of election results does not constitute assistance for furthering the prospects of a candidate's election and therefore cannot constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court observed that the election petition must contain specific pleadings demonstrating that the candidate or his agent obtained assistance for furthering the prospects of the candidate's election.
Case Title: High Court on its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 386
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 17) took suo motu cognisance of the "acute water shortage" being faced by the University of Mumbai's Madam Cama Girl's Hostel situated in the city's posh Churchgate area.
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs Sangeeta Devdas Salvi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 387
The Bombay High Court has held that Community Health Volunteers (CHVs) engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai are entitled to receive minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the hours of duty performed by them. The Court further held that mere branding of the remuneration paid to CHVs as honorarium, or describing them as volunteers, cannot deny them the status of employees for the limited purpose of determining their entitlement to minimum wages.
Case Title: Gulamohamed Roshanali Lakhani vs Mohammed Amin M Shafi Qureshi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 388
The Bombay High Court has directed officers exercising functions under its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction to, henceforth, restrict orders directing issuance of grants to a direction to issue the grant, without making it subject to verification of whether any cross Petition or Caveat has been filed. The Court further directed that all grants be issued no later than two weeks from the date of the order directing issuance of the grant and that the Registry not entertain any Caveats or cross Petitions after such order, unless directed by the Court.
Narendra Dabholkar Murder Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Shooter Sachin Andure
Case Title: Sachin Prakashrao Andure vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 389
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 18) while granting bail and suspending the life sentence awarded to right-wing extremist Sachin Andure, a prime convict in the murder case of rationalist Dr Narendra Dabholkar, who was shot dead in August 2013, held that the evidence against him was very weak which could even result in his acquittal in appeal.
Case Title: Dr Rashmi Sanghi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 390
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 18) quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two doctors, way back in 2015 under charges of criminal defamation for speaking in Aamir Khan's 'Satyamev Jayate' show, about toxic food poison and also about fruits and vegetables having abnormally high levels of pesticide residues thereby causing “folic acid” deficiency in pregnant mothers which leads to causing of skull deformities in new born babies and also contaminating the mother's milk.
Goa Night Club Fire Incident: Bombay High Court Cancels Bail Granted To Restaurant Owners
Case Title: State of Goa vs Saurabh Luthra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 391
Observing that the Sessions Court failed to apply its mind and improperly exercised its discretion, the Bombay High Court on August 18 cancelled the bail granted to Sourabh Luthra, Gaurav Luthra and Ajay Gupta the co-owners of the Birch By Romeo Lane, a prominent nightclub in North Goa's Arpora area, which was engulfed in massive fire killing 25 people.
Case Title: Shritij Mohan Shrivastava vs The Reserve Bank of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 392
The Bombay High Court has held that a candidate who meets the notified disability criteria for the post of Officer Grade 'B' cannot be held ineligible merely because he additionally has a learning disability.
Case Title: Mukesh Popatlal Gada vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 393
The Bombay High Court has held that prior permission under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 is not mandatory for initiating proceedings under the Act. The Court observed that it is open to a private individual to file a complaint, as the language of Section 83 is permissive and not mandatory.
Case Title: Newkem Products Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 394
The Bombay High Court has held that Sections 297 and 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 cannot be invoked to take possession of private land where there is no existing public street over the portion sought to be acquired. The Court further held that the statutory power under Sections 297 and 299 cannot be extended to an exercise which would substantially and actually dismember an existing factory.
Case Title: Manohar Mahadeo Hajare vs Mangal Prabhat Gumanlal Lodha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 395
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 18) upheld an order passed by Magistrate in October 2008 quashing the process issued against BJP leader and Maharashtra's Cabinet Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha in a 2007 case of alleged cheating and fraud with respect to development of certain properties in Thane district.
Case Title: Yohaan Abraham vs Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj University
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 396
The Bombay High Court has held that a three-year undergraduate law degree obtained from a foreign university, merely by reason of its recognition by the Bar Council of India for the purposes contemplated under the regulatory framework governing foreign law degrees, cannot be treated as the qualifying “First Degree” for admission to the three-year LL.B. course in India. The Court further held that recognition of a foreign law degree for one statutory purpose cannot, by implication, confer eligibility for another distinct statutory purpose.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Bhaurao Narayan Kinake
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 397
The Department of Law and Judiciary (DLJ) must act independently and not succumb to pressure mounted by any of the other departments of a State Government, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to condone a delay of 650 days in filing appeal against acquittal in a Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act case.
Case Title: Shubham Vijay Mangire vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 398
Competition for admission to professional courses is undoubtedly intense but no admission, however desirable, can justify manipulation of of an examination record, the Bombay High Court held while refusing to grant any relief to a student, whose provisional admission to a B.Tech course was cancelled by a University in Pune after noting that the scorecard submitted by the student did not match with the scorecard uploaded on the website of Maharashtra Health and Technical Common Entrance Test (MAH-MHT-CET).
Case Title: VHC vs MVC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 399
Mere annoyance or irritation between a couple will not amount to cruelty and cannot be a ground for seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, held the Bombay High Court recently while dismissing a husband's appeal against an order of a Family Court, which too had dismissed his plea seeking dissolution of his marriage on grounds of cruelty.
Case Title: Baburao Gangadhar Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 400
The Bombay High Court has held that land which is de-reserved from a revised Development Plan by operation of law cannot be reserved again in a subsequent Development Plan with some variation in purpose. A division bench comprising Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale was hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), seeking a declaration that the reservation for public amenities upon the subject property vide sanctioned Development Plan for Nashik Corporation has lapsed and that the said lands are released from the reservation and available to the Petitioner for development.
Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Yogesh Babulal Mehta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 401
The Bombay High Court has held that a public authority is not under an obligation under the RTI Act to obtain information from a private body to satisfy an applicant seeking information. The Court further held that while the public authority is required to furnish the information held by it at the point in time when the request is made, the RTI Act does not cast an obligation to collect or collate information not available with it and then to furnish the same.
Case Title: Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs Mohan Shriram Nimdeokar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 402
The Bombay High Court has held that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is required to be calculated only on the enhanced amount of compensation and that unpaid interest cannot be added to the enhanced compensation for calculating further interest.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 403
Taking note of the 'concerning pattern' of foreigners 'infiltrating' India's borders and fraudulently obtaining basic documents like Aadhar Card, PAN Card etc. to conceal their identities, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Union Government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to consider amending the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 for prompt tracing and deporting of such foreign nationals, who live in India illegally.
'No Right To Take Any Particular Route For Religious Procession Under Article 25': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Deepak Devidas Nechwan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 404
The Bombay High Court has held that the right guaranteed under Article 25 to practise one's religion is subject to the larger interest of law and order, public order and the needs of other sections of the population, when the same are adversely affected by the exercise of the right in a particular manner. The Court observed that the exercise of the right to practise one's religion is one thing and to practise it in a particular way is another.
Case Title: Nimesia Faleiro vs State of Goa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 405
No Government has an entitlement to chose a politically convenient date of an election whose periodicity has been fixed by the Constitution of India, held the Bombay High Court while upholding the validity of the Goa Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, which has now paved way for elections of 11 Municipal Councils in Goa.
Accused Having To Wait Inside Police Station Before Inquiry Is Not Under Arrest: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Manohar Sharad Pathare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 406
An accused having to wait inside the police station for inquiry because the investigating officer is busy in some other case cannot claim that he was 'under arrest', held the Bombay High Court recently. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale dismissed a plea filed by one Manohar Pathare, who sought a declaration that the 'waiting time' in the station house was actually a period by when he was arrested as at the police had total control over him and that his movement was restricted.
Case Title: Girish Nigonda Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 407
The Bombay High Court recently held that a man's act of grabbing a woman's shoulder, pressing it and shoving her away, making her feel ashamed, may amount to outraging her modesty but the very act would not amount to sexual harassment as there is 'no sexual intent' or 'sexual overtures' or any unwelcome physical contact.
Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 408
The Bombay High Court recently imposed a hefty cost of Rs 5 lakh on a man for dragging his septuagenarian father to court despite the fact of him (father) suffering from various ailments. The High Court held this to be an abuse of the process and severely reprimanded the son's conduct.
Case Title: YRK vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 409
The Bombay High Court recently while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a 'young man' for 'brandishing' a sword in a neighbourhood quarrel, held that Courts must give an opportunity to such young accused persons for their reformation and rehabilitation. The High Court also imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the young man to 'give out a strong message' to the young citizens of the country not to take law in their own hands.
Case Title: M/s. Sada Anand Developers vs Shree Balaji Realty
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 410
The Bombay High Court has held that a contract which is inherently determinable cannot be specifically enforced and, consequently, an interim injunction cannot be granted to protect such a contract. The Court observed that when the MOU was determinable by its very nature, specific performance of the same could not be insisted upon.
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.
Employer Cannot Constitute Its Own Appellate Authority Under POSH Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ashok Upadhyay vs Union Bank of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 487
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 18 of the POSH Act read with Rule 11 of the POSH Rules does not confer any authority or jurisdiction on an employer to create or constitute an Appellate Authority. The Court further cautioned that public institutions must be cautious in interpreting, as a misconceived interpretation can lead to a chaotic situation.
Case Title: Anup Vikal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
A decision of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) rejecting a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (POSH) Act, 2013 at the threshold with a finding that 'no sexual element' is involved in the plaint, without conducting an enquiry, would still amount to a 'recommendation' under the Act and the said decision can be 'appealed' before an Industrial Court, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 19).
Other Developments:
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 2) directed the Maharashtra Government to ensure that the two reports submitted by Mumbai Police and also the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) with respect to the probe into the threats and attacks on former judge Justice Gautam Patel are not made public.
With the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) facing flak on social media platforms for the waterlogged roads in Mumbai and its nearby cities due to the relentless rains, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday said the city was 'destined' to witness rainwater on the roads as people 'robbed their own motherland' by encroaching lands and clogging the drainage systems.
One of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case, Mahesh Raut has moved a plea before the Bombay High Court seeking permission to travel to Kerala for Ayurvedic treatment after a special NIA court turned down his plea for the same in January this year.
To get the benefit of 'exemption' under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax (IT) Act, which grants exemption from tax on gifts between heterosexual couple, a same sex couple must first get its union legally recognised as a 'marriage' or 'spouse' etc, the Income Tax Department recently told the Bombay High Court.
Industrialist Anil Ambani on Friday (July 10) withdrew his writ petition from the Bombay High Court, by which he had challenged the September 4, 2025 order passed by the Bank of Baroda, classifying the loan accounts of Reliance Communications as 'fraud.'
The Plaster of Paris (PoP) made Ganesha idols of above 6 feet like that of the popular 'Lalbaugcha Raja' should not be permitted to be immersed in any natural water body, the Bombay High Court was told on Wednesday (July 15) as it commenced hearing the final arguments in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking effective implementation of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines against immersion of PoP idols in natural water resources.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 15) ordered the State's Director General of Police (DGP) to submit a report spelling out if all the police stations across Maharashtra have operational CCTV cameras and also for how much period is their data preserved by the concerned police stations. A divison bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad has asked the DGP to submit his report on August 10.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Centre to file its reply by July 29 in a plea filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which he claims enables online content takedowns without adequate safeguards.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 16) questioned manufacturers of Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols on whether their commercial interests could override concerns relating to environmental protection and interests of the society at large.
The Bombay High Court was on Friday (July 17) told that the Maharashtra Government was trying to protect 'big mandals' by pressing for allowing immersion of Ganesh idols made of Plaster of Paris (PoP) above the height of six feet, in natural water bodies.
While hearing a plea filed by 12 Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holding budding cricketers challenging the decision of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which has made 'Indian Passport' mandatory for players to play in any of its tournaments, the Bombay High Court on Friday (July 17) said such foreign national players must consider 'returning' to India, which is the 'motherland' of the parents of such players.
The Bombay High Court in a special sitting on Saturday, cancelled the bail granted to Ramesh Mhatre, the sitting corporator from Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde), booked for assaulting three doctors of civic-run hospital. The high court today took suo motu cognisance of an order passed by a Magistrate court in Kalyan granting bail to Mhatre. Notably, doctors across Maharashtra had announced that they would abstain from work on July 22 after Mhatre was granted bail, along with his four associates who were also accused of actively assaulting the doctors.
The Bombay High Court today came down heavily on the Maharashtra Police for extending “VIP treatment” to Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) corporator Ramesh Mhatre, who was arrested for assaulting three doctors at a civic hospital in Thane. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad expressed serious displeasure after learning that Mhatre had been produced virtually before a Magistrate, for remand.
On its fourth day of hearing the final arguments in the PIL seeking complete ban on immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols in natural water bodies, the Bombay High Court was on Wednesday (July 22) told that the pollution levels in the country have reached the highest levels and that the 'Mother Earth' has been crying due to pollution.
The Bombay Bar Association (BBA) on Wednesday (July 22) condemned the "use of force" by police authorities against students protesting exam paper leaks, and also the damage caused to public property by a 'section' of protestors.
A group of advocates practising before the Bombay High Court has strongly criticised the Mumbai Police's action against protesters and called for the withdrawal of sweeping prohibitory orders imposed across the city, contending that they unjustifiably curtail citizens' fundamental right to peaceful assembly.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 23) issued notices to the Central Government and the National Testing Agency (NTA) in petitions filed by three NEET-UG aspirants, who have pointed out discrepancy in the results declared on July 16, wherein they were given lesser marks from what they had calculated from their OMR sheets and official answer keys.
The artisans manufacturing Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols on Thursday (July 23) told the Bombay High Court that while they support a ban on immersion of PoP idols in natural water bodies to prevent pollution, any restriction on their right to manufacture such idols would violate their right to livelihood.
A day after the Central Government decided to set up special Fast Track Courts to deal with cases of malpractices in various exams including the NEET, the Bombay High Court has designated two special courts in Aurangabad and Nagpur districts.
Observing that while it is good that people believe in God but they must also be taught to "respect Mother Nature", the Bombay High Court on Friday (July 24) urged the Maharashtra Government to seriously consider a proposal for the symbolic immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols exceeding six feet in height, instead of immersing them in natural water bodies.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) permitted Union Minister and senior BJP leader Nitin Gadkari to sue X, Meta, Google and unknown others over the alleged defamatory, deepfake and AI generated posts linking him to the Ethanol-blended fuel controversy.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) refused to grant any interim relief to Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) corporator Ramesh Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting three doctors at a civic-run hospital in Dombivli, while strongly condemning the conduct of elected representatives who resort to violence against the very people they are elected to serve.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) refused to lift the stay it had imposed on 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).
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 27) pulled up the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for changing its stand on its own guidelines banning the immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols in natural water bodies by now claiming that they are merely 'advisory', despite having earlier defended their validity before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and various High Courts.
E20 Petrol Policy: Bombay High Court To Hear Nitin Gadkari's ₹11 Crore Defamation Suit On August 5
The Bombay High Court today adjourned till next Wednesday (August 5) the hearing in the Union Minister and senior BJP leader Nitin Gadkari's suit seeking orders to remove alleged defamatory and deepfake content linking him with the controversial Ethanol-blended fuel policy.
Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Raj Kundra's Plea Challenging Summons In ED's 'Bitcoins' Case
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 28) issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea filed by husband of Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty and businessman Raj Kundra, who has challenged a special court's order taking cognisance of a supplementary chargesheet naming him in a Bitcoin-linked money laundering case.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 29) observed that the proposed 'symbolic immersion' of giant Plaster of Paris (PoP) Ganesh idols, followed by their recycling instead of immersion in natural water bodies, would not affect anyone's religious sentiments and would instead help protect the environment for future generations.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 30) adjourned sine die the plea filed by a same sex couple seeking 'exemption' under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax (IT) Act, which grants exemption from tax on 'gifts' between heterosexual couples. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla has kept the matter in abeyance until an identical matter pending before the Karnataka High Court is decided.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (July 31) came down heavily on the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) over what it described as "false" food safety inspection reports submitted in respect of canteens operating in the State Secretariat (Mantralaya) and Vidhan Bhavan.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 3) questioned the Mumbai Police over its decision not to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite the suspicion of murder expressed by the father of Disha Salian, the former manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Maharashtra Government over its failure to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees under Section 20 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 across the State, observing that despite the Government Resolution dated 28 April 2026 directing constitution of such Committees within three months, there was virtually no compliance. The Court further observed that constitution of the Grievance Redressal Mechanism is "very much imperative" under the scheme of the 2014 Act, as a street vendor having a grievance or dispute can make an application before the Committee for redressal.
The Bombay High Court has sought the State Government's response on whether permitting the appointment of a private mitigating investigator, alongside the exercise directed to be undertaken by the State under the Supreme Court's decisions in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Aman Singh vs State of Bihar, would result in duplication of the exercise. The Court observed that there should be no conflict in the exercise of collecting information relating to the convict's background, antecedents, mental health status, socio-economic conditions and other circumstances.
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and also the State Government to file their detailed affidavits spelling out the steps taken so far or proposed to be taken to provide financial assistance to young advocates at the Bar to ensure that the young advocates, who face financial difficulties during the initial years of their practice, do not abandon their practice.
The Bombay High Court Goa Bench on Thursday (August 6) set aside the judgment of a Sessions Court in Mapusa which had acquitted Tehelka Magazine's former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in a rape case lodged against him by a junior colleague in November 2013.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (August 6) orally observed that doctors cannot resort to strike under any circumstances, emphasizing that patient lives cannot be put at risk. "You just cannot resort to strike... Whatever be the situation... There may be 'n' number of reasons for you to go on strike but you just cannot resort to strike... Think about the mankind" a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad orally said.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (August 06) indicated that it is inclined to grant bail to Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) corporator Ramesh Mhatre, who is accused of assaulting three on duty doctors at a civic-run hospital in Dombivli, observing that the investigation is almost complete and he cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely.
Old Monk, McDowell Rum Manufacturers Moves Bombay High Court Against FSSAI Order Prohibiting Sale
After the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) prohibited the manufacture and sale of fresh stocks of McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum and Old Monk, their manufacturers have approached the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the prohibition orders.
Bombay High Court Directs BCI To Scrutinise & Clear Pending Affiliation Approvals For Law Colleges
The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to forthwith scrutinize and process the applications submitted by four law colleges seeking approval and, if the applications are found in order, grant the necessary approvals by August 6, 2026. The Court further directed the Directorate of Higher Education, Pune to verify the approvals and include the approved colleges in its list.
Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Ankhad on Monday (August 10) recused himself from hearing a bunch of petitions filed by the Indian National Congress (INC), the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) and also the Communist Party of India (Marxist) challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, (MSPSA) 2025
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 10) granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) time till August 24 to respond to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum, challenging orders prohibiting the manufacture and sale of fresh stocks of the two products.
The Bombay High Court while issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday (August 12) orally opined that the commercial disputes pending between former liquor baron Vijay Mallya and the consortium of banks must be put to an end, and that the parties involved must 'move on' as otherwise it will affect the country's economy.
The Bombay High Court has observed that the issue of whether samples of imported food items should be drawn by authorised officers appointed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) or by Customs Officers and sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) is a recurring one. The Court, therefore, directed the Revenue Authority to file its stand on the issue.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) observed that the major problem with the stray dogs menace is the increasing population of stray dogs and therefore, ordered the Maharashtra Government to aggressively implement the 'sterilisation' program as mandated under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules of 2023.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) granted interim protection from arrest to Kamakhya Prasad Das, a former TISS student, who was booked for raising slogans "to free Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam." Single-judge Justice Prafulla Khubalkar agreed to hear Das' plea seeking anticipatory bail on August 31 and granted him interim protection from arrest in the meantime.
The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) closed for orders, a batch of petitions, seeking a complete ban on immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) made Ganesh idols in natural water bodies. The High Court has however, clarified that its last year's order which permitted immersion of only six feet and above height PoP idols in natural water bodies and rest (below six feet) in artificial tanks, to be implemented strictly by the Maharashtra Government in the forthcoming Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 25) ordered the Maharashtra Food & Drugs Administration (FDA) to re-inspect the five eateries operating in the premises of Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) and submit its report on whether their suspended licences could be revoked.
Days after the Maharashtra Government commenced 'strict' implementation of its decision making 'working knowledge of Marathi language' compulsory for all autorickshaw, taxi and app-based cab drivers, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the very decision arguing that 'citizens of India' who come to Maharashtra for earning their bread are being treated as 'outsiders.'
The Bombay High Court on Saturday directed the Maharashtra Government to ensure immediate medical care for tribal students in Pune who have been on hunger strike for the last 15 days, after it was informed that the health of one of the protesting students had deteriorated.
The Maharashtra Government on Saturday informed the Bombay High Court that autorickshaw, taxi and cab drivers across the state will be granted one year to learn and master Marathi, following a challenge to the government's requirement that such drivers possess a “working knowledge” of the language.
The Bombay High Court came down heavily on Maharashtra's Food & Drug Administration (FDA) on Saturday for passing "mechanical orders" to retain the suspension of licenses of five eateries operating on the premises of the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) in the city, despite an earlier direction of the Court to reconsider the issue and pass a reasoned order.
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).
Observing that while the Food & Drugs Administration's (FDA) intention is 'laudable' but the authority has somewhat went overboard, the Bombay High Court on Monday (July 17) ordered the authority to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a Pune-based sweet shop, which despite being found to be 98% hygiene compliant, yet its licence was suspended and the same was not restored.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 19) directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to allow a pre-school and day care centre to operate from a residential apartment at least for the time till the authority decides the 'change of user' application filed by the said pre-school.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 19) slammed the Maharashtra Government for its 'appalling apathy' in not taking any effective steps for the protection of around 228 school going children, who walk almost 30 kilometres daily from the Sahyadri Tiger Reserve (STR) and are exposed to possible wild animals attack.
While refusing to grant interim relief to a Thane-based Udupi restaurant, whose licence has been suspended by the Food & Drugs Administration (FDA) for serving the recently banned 'analogue paneer', the Bombay High Court on Friday (August 21) said such hotels must tell the customers by putting up boards that they are not serving what is being shown in the menu card.