LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 28 - October 4, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 479 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491Nominal IndexSadashiv Ambadas Gayake vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 479A vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 480Kalim Isaq Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 481All India Travel Services vs Ashok K Upadhayay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 482Narayan Tatu Rane vs Vinayak Bhaurao Raut, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 483X...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 479 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
Nominal Index
Sadashiv Ambadas Gayake vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
A vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
Kalim Isaq Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
All India Travel Services vs Ashok K Upadhayay, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
Narayan Tatu Rane vs Vinayak Bhaurao Raut, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
X vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
Lawyers Collective vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
Serum Institute of India vs Yohan Tengra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
Nikhil Madhukar Thepale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 487
Samantha Ruth Prabhu vs John Does, Ashok Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
Rani Pratap Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
Pawan Subhash Sarkale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
M/s. Economy Engineering Co vs M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
Judgments & Final Orders
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.
Case Title: Nikhil Madhukar Thepale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 487
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the act of circulating objectionable videos or photographs of a person belong to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe on a social media platform like WhatsApp, would attract the provisions of the stringent Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the same is within the 'public view.'
Case Title: Samantha Ruth Prabhu vs John Does, Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) while protecting the personality rights of South Indian film actress Samantha Ruth Prabhu, ordered Google, Meta Platforms and other social media platforms and John Doe (unknown parties), to pull down the objectionable and derogatory content uploaded featuring her.
Case Title: Rani Pratap Singh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
In a strongly worded judgment, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) held that a Indian Citizen booked for running a brothel and forcing a woman into prostitution cannot be spared just because the woman is an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh as this would be nothing but 'victim shaming.' The High Court said that labels such as 'illegal immigrant' does not strip the woman's dignity and protection against trafficking.
Case Title: Pawan Subhash Sarkale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
The Bombay High Court has held that merely demanding an exorbitant or disproportionate amount during settlement talks does not by itself attract Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code or constitute an offence of extortion. The Court observed that an intentional threat or fear of injury is an essential ingredient of the offence, and quashed the FIR against the flat purchasers.
Case Title: M/s Economy Engineering Co. vs M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
The Bombay High Court has held that conversion of a proprietorship concern into a partnership firm and subsequently into a private limited company comprising the original tenant's family members does not amount to subletting where no third person is inducted into the business. The Court further held that the 2015 amendment to Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, replacing “may” with “shall”, has prospective effect.
Other Developments:
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).
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) flagged that Parth Pawar, son of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar and a Rajya Sabha MP, holds 99% stake in Ameida Enterprises LLP, which allegedly purchased a 40-acre government-owned land parcel in Pune's Mundhwa area at a price much lower than its actual value.
Goa SIR: Bombay High Questions ECI Over Automated Rejection Of Form 8
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday (October 1) sought to know from the Election Commission of India (ECI) as to why Form 8 applications meant for changing the address in the Voter ID were being rejected by its automated software system, during the ongoing process of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.