Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 20 to April 26, 2026

Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 211]Tridoss Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197M/s Ascent Ventures vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 198Bina Ramnik Chawda vs Cherag Balsara, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 199Lalan Kishore Singh vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 200Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar vs Balaji Pandharinath Thorat, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 201Shrinivas Shinde vs Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 202Gajanan Kashiram Shekokar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 203Girish Rameshchandra Malani vs Reserve Bank of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 204Adv. Yogeshwar Madhukarrao Kawade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 205Rajendra Chaudhary s/o Vikram Singh Chaudhary @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav @ Laxman Das Maharaj vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 206Rajendra Chaudhary s/o Vikram Singh Chaudhary @ Dashrath @ Samander @ Badal Yadav @ Laxman Das Maharaj vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 207Santosh Motiram Chavan vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 208The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sandeep Sunder Kolhe, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 209Santsaran Gursaran Advani vs Nina Bhalla, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 210Kashinath Ramji Shinde vs Pradip, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 211Final Orders / Judgments:Pharma Pricing Authority Cannot Equate 'Sustained Release' With 'Controlled Release' Drug To Fix Ceiling Prices Without Notification: Bombay HCCase Title: Tridoss Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 197The Bombay High Court has held that the authority cannot equate 'sustained release' with 'controlled release' formulations to fix ceiling prices in the absence of a specific notification covering such formulations. The Court observed that a demand raised after more than a decade, without explanation and without affording a proper opportunity, violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.S.294 CrPC Mandatory, Trial Court Cannot Reject Admission Or Denial Of Documents On Ground Of Relevance: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s Ascent Ventures vs The State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 198The Bombay High Court has held that Section 294 CrPC is mandatory and the Trial Court cannot reject an application seeking to call upon the opposite party to admit or deny documents merely on the ground of relevancy. The Court observed that once documents are brought on record in accordance with law, the Court is bound to follow the statutory procedure of calling upon the other party to admit or deny their genuineness.Fresh Service Affidavit Based On Earlier Rejected Documents Cannot Prove Summons Service: Bombay High Court Imposes ₹50K CostCase Title: Bina Ramnik Chawda vs Cherag BalsaraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 199The Bombay High Court has held that filing a fresh service affidavit based on documents earlier disapproved by the Court cannot be accepted as proof of service of summons. The Court observed that such conduct, despite repeated directions, warrants imposition of costs. Single-judge Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an interim application filed by the defendants seeking permission to treat their affidavit in reply as a written statement and to file an additional written statement. The plaintiff opposed the application, contending that the writ of summons had been duly served in 2019 and therefore the defendants' right to defend stood forfeited. The defendants, however, consistently maintained that no summons had been served upon them.Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Claiming Misuse Of Taxpayers' Money On RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat's Z+ SecurityCase Title: Lalan Kishore Singh vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 200The Bombay High Court today dismissed a PIL that raised questions over the Z Plus security provided to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Chief Mohan Bhagwat and sought recovery of tax payers' money claiming that RSS is an "unregistered" organisation. Sitting at the Nagpur seat, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the PIL filed by one Lalan Kishore Singh, who claimed to be an activist.Service Records Are Personal Information, Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar vs Balaji Pandharinath ThoratCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 201The Bombay High Court has held that a service record constitutes personal information exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act. The Court observed that such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the authority records satisfaction that a larger public interest warrants such disclosure.POSH Act Penalises Woman For Filing False Complaint But Not Someone Who 'Instigates' Her To Lodge It: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shrinivas Shinde vs Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 202In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa on Monday (April 20) held that the Sexual...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 20 to April 26, 2026

Narsi Benwal

Tags