Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 322]Nominal IndexXYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310State of Maharashtra vs Chetan Yashwantrao Pagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 311Suka Mahadu Khade vs Bababai Tukaram Shevre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 312Dharampal Sharma vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 313Zal Sam Cooper vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)...
Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 322]
Nominal Index
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
State of Maharashtra vs Chetan Yashwantrao Pagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
Suka Mahadu Khade vs Bababai Tukaram Shevre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
Dharampal Sharma vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
Zal Sam Cooper vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Vishwas Yeshwant Dhomse, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
Preity G Zinta vs Google LLC, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rohidas Ambadas Chavan, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
Dr. Satish Bhide vs Ravindra M. Pande, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
Rameshkumar Hanjarimal Rathod vs Smt. Kantabai Lalchand Gandhi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
Debashish Devnarayan Ghosh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
Altaf Shaikh vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
Final Orders/Judgments:
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.
Other Developments:
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.'