Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026

Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88]Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 50Anita Naik vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52Madhu Malti Enterprises vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 53Abu Salem vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 54Martin Soares vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 55Anuradha Nayan Shah vs Jayantilal Vallabhdas Patni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 56Chetan Samajik Pratishthan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 57Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra,2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58Mohammed Javed Abdul Wahab vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 59ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 60Akashdeep Karaj Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 61Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar vs Tree Authority Department, Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 62Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 63Elis Jane Quinlan vs Naveen Kumar Seth, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 64Bipin Vasant Shinde vs Pune Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 65Prakash Krishna Gamre vs Krishna Ganpat Gamre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 66Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Minister for Cooperation & Textile Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 67State of Maharashtra vs Satish Sanjay Ramteke, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 68Deepali Dinesh Naik vs Krantivir Chafekar Education Society, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 69Aditya Shailendra Mane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 70Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 71Vaibhav Gopaldas Mundada vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 72State Bank of India vs Anil D Ambani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 73Shakuntala Tilakdhari Gupta vs Jawaharlal R Gupta, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 74Kishore Pessulal Dewani vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 75The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare vs Teofilo J Monteiro, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 76VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 77Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti vs M/s Govindram Shobharam and Company, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 78Chitrakshi Yogesh Rangwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80Shobhit Kumar vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81Pradeep Prakash Baiker vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 82Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 83The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs M/s. Aashu Engineering Works, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 84Mumbai Fire Services Union vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 85Stavan Wilson Sathe vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 86Sunita Bapu Jagtap vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 87Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 89Final Orders/JudgmentsInsurance Companies Must Show High Level Of Professionalism & Diligence While Vetting Application For Porting Policy: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 49Insurance companies when accepting porting of a policy must show highest level of professionalism and due diligence in vetting the customer's previous insurance claim history and then take an 'informed' decision, the Bombay High Court ruled recently. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that the insurance companies when dealing with an application by a customer to port his or her insurance policy from one company to the another, cannot blame the customer for failing to furnish the details of previous policy's claim history as it is the task of the previous insurance company to provide such information.Court's Pendency Can't Justify Delay In Filing Review: Bombay High Court Declines To Condone 645-Day DelayCase Title: Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad PoddarCitation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 50In an interesting ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday (February 2) held that a court taking two decades to decide a matter cannot be a ground for a party to challenge the court's order after a delay of nearly two years. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore, refused to condone a delay of 645 days as prayed by one Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala, who sought to review an order passed in a First Appeal on February 6, 2024.Solitary Incident Of Assaulting Child Is Not 'Child Abuse' Under Goa Children's Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Anita Naik vs StateCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 3), while acquitting two women convicted for hitting their relative's child with an iron rod on his head leading to bleeding injury, held that mere solitary instance of an...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026

Narsi Benwal

Tags