Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 04 - May 10, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232 - 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250Nominal IndexJhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 233Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. vs Rahul Sudhindra Soni, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 238Sambhaji Balkrishna Zambre vs Chhaya Balkrishna Zambre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 239Chetan Dilip Paradhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 240Rubabuddin Shaikh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 241Yuvraj Santrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242Rama Gunda Malkapure vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 243Vaijenath Haridas Ambad vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244Rohit Bandu Nikalje vs The Regional Officer, UIDAI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 245High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 246Santosh Hiraman Lashkare vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 247D S Textiles vs IIFL Finance Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 248Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani vs Sugandha Hiremath, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 249Maniar Ramesh Kumar vs CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 250Final Orders/Judgments'Permissions Obtained By Misrepresentation Are Void': Bombay High Court Upholds Revocation Of Building ApprovalCase Title: Jhalak Constructions vs Ulhasnagar Municipal CorporationCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232The Bombay High Court has held that permissions obtained from a Municipal Corporation by misrepresentation or submission of incorrect material are void and cannot be sustained in law. The Court observed that fraud vitiates all actions, and a party cannot take advantage of permissions secured by misleading the authority. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation revoking development permission granted to the petitioners for the construction of a multi-storey building under Section 51 of the MRTP Act. The Corporation had also directed the removal of the construction.Industrial Dispute Deemed 'Pending' U/S Till 30 Days Post-Award; S.33(2)(B) Approval Mandatory: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Santosh Chandrkant Potdar vs Bajaj Auto LimitedCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 232The Bombay High Court has held that an industrial dispute is deemed to remain “pending” under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act until 30 days after publication of the award, even if the dispute is factually settled. The Court clarified that during this statutory period, compliance with Section 33(2)(b) is mandatory for dismissal of a workman.'State Cannot Retain Stamp Duty Paid Under Wrong Head Due To Delay': Bombay High Court Orders Refund With InterestCase Title: Manjeet Singh vs Chief Controller Revenue Authority Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 234The Bombay High Court has held that the State cannot retain stamp duty paid under a wrong head merely on the ground that the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court observed that procedural timelines cannot defeat a substantive right, particularly where the State would otherwise unjustly enrich itself.Transfer Of Adoption Powers To District Magistrates Valid: Bombay High Court Upholds 2021 Juvenile Justice Act AmendmentCase Title: Nisha Pradeep Pandya vs Union of India Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 235The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the 2021 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which transfers the power to issue adoption orders from courts to District Magistrates. The Court held that the change in forum does not violate constitutional principles and is aimed at expediting the adoption process.Bombay High Court Quashes Bribery FIR Lodged By Lilavati Hospital Against HDFC CEO Sashidhar JagdishanCase Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 236The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust against Sashidhar Jagdishan over alleged bribery. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Nitin Borkar noted that the instant FIR was triggered out of "personal vendetta." It also noted that the HDFC Bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the Trust and thus, in a counterblast, the instant FIR was lodged against the bank's CEO.Competent Authority Under Maharashtra Rent Act Cannot Examine Documents Beyond Leave & License Agreement In Eviction Proceedings: Bombay HCCase Title: Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui vs Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 237The Bombay High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 04 - May 10, 2026

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 04 - May 10, 2026

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers