Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 335 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 347Nominal IndexNeville Tuli vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 335 JPPP vs PVP, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 336Saidpur Jute Company Limited vs National Co-operative Consumer's Federation of India Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 337Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid @ Asif Shaikh Rasheed vs Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique,...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 335 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
Nominal Index
Neville Tuli vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
JPPP vs PVP, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
Saidpur Jute Company Limited vs National Co-operative Consumer's Federation of India Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid @ Asif Shaikh Rasheed vs Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
RPKS vs PKJS, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
RYJ vs Principal Secretary, School Education Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
Ajay Kisan Dungarshi @ Pintu vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
Saili Durgadas Acharya vs Nandan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
Dr. Anagha Bhupendra Kothadiya vs Motiram Govind Budhwani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
Paartha Sharathi vs Competent Authority, Reserve Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
Mehta Impex Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
M/s SMS Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
Final Orders/Judgments:
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.
Other Developments:
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.