LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 27 to August 2, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 360Nominal Index Binod Sitaram Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Wu Jyun Lin vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 349Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 350Shashi Kiran Shetty vs Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 351Maheshkumar B Patel vs Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 352Mumtaz Ahmad Shah vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 353Narendra Subhash Pelmahale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 354Kannamwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 355Ananta Rajaram Walunj vs Grupo Antolin Pune (P) Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 356Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 357Vignesh Ramesh Kamble va State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 358The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Atikurrahaman Lais Mohammad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 359Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 360Final Orders/JudgmentsMere Allegations Of Illegal Arrest Insufficient To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against Police: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Binod Sitaram Agarwal vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Mere allegations that an individual's arrest violated the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, Joginder Kumar vs State of UP and other decisions do not attract civil or criminal contempt against Police, the Bombay High Court held on Tuesday (July 28). A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait Sethna refused to initiate contempt action against Mumbai Police officers over the arrest of a man in a case registered under the Information Technology Act.Bombay High Court Quashes Order Asking Taiwan National To Leave India, Says Pursuing Online Education Didn't Violate Employment VisaCase Title: Wu Jyun Lin vs Foreigners Regional Registration OfficeCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 349The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 28) quashed and set aside an order directing a Taiwan national to leave India at the earliest, for allegedly breaching his 'employment' Visa by simultaneously pursuing two educational courses and re-entering India now on a 'student' Visa for pursuing his law course at city's prominent - Government Law College (GLC).Bombay High Court Quashes Externment Of SDPI Worker For Merely Protesting Babri Masjid Demolition, Opposing Central Govt DecisionsCase Title: Firoz Abdul Wahab Khan vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 350In a significant order, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside externment order passed against a leader of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who was ousted from the city for participating in various agitations protesting the decisions of the Central Government and also for sloganeering against the demolition of Babri Masjid.Bombay High Court Restrains Media From Calling Rajesh Khanna's Former Bungalow 'Cursed', 'Haunted', 'Unlucky'Case Title: Shashi Kiran Shetty vs Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 351The Bombay High Court recently restrained media houses and certain YouTube channels from posting anything defamatory or using words such as "unlucky, haunted, cursed or ill-omened" about the iconic 'Ashirwad' bungalow formerly owned by Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor passed the order while hearing the suit filed by businessman Shashi Kiran Shetty, who now owns the bungalow situated at Mumbai's posh Carter Road in Bandra.BCI Rules Do Not Bar Advocate From Representing Family Members; Prohibition Applies To Appearing Before Relative Judges: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Maheshkumar B Patel vs Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 352The Bombay High Court has held that the Bar Council of India Rules do not prohibit an advocate from representing his or her own family members in legal proceedings. The Court observed that Rule 6 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette merely prohibits an advocate from appearing before a court, tribunal or authority where a relative is a member of that adjudicatory body, and cannot be construed as a bar against representing relatives as clients.'Passing Eviction Orders Without Enforcement Machinery Renders Law Meaningless': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mumtaz Ahmad Shah vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation AuthorityCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 353The Bombay High Court has held that merely passing eviction orders without providing an effective mechanism for their implementation renders the statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 meaningless. The Court further observed that the Competent Authority is under a statutory obligation to enforce eviction orders and cannot refuse to do so on the ground that it lacks the necessary machinery or that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority...

LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 27 to August 2, 2026

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 27 to August 2, 2026

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers