Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 27 - May 03, 2026

Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231] Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212Kumar Chintaman Ketkar vs Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 213Ashish Prakash Walke vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 214M/s Pioneer Constructions vs Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 215Sanjay Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 216Mahadeo vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 217M/s GH Khandelwal vs Amravati Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 218Sharad Kalaskar vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 219Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 220Helcino A Fernandes vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 221Fahim Arshad Mohammed Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 222Shekhar Suman vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 223Dr. Dhanashri Rajesh Deshmukh vs Saroj Kumar Behera, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 224Dhanraj R. Mahale vs Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 225PRG vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 226Blinston Savio Fernandes vs Leandra Marie Fernandes, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 227Anil Baburao Baile vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 228Late Mahadev Dhondiba Marne vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 229Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 230Surendra Gadling vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 231Final Orders/JudgmentsPower Of Attorney Holder Does Not Have Locus To File Complaint On Behalf Of Victim Under SC/ST Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 212The Bombay High Court has held that a Power of Attorney holder does not have the locus to file a complaint on behalf of the victim for offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that in such cases, the complaint is required to be made by the affected person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, and not by an agent without specific authorisation.Bombay High Court Upholds Charity Commissioner's Order Appointing Interim Committee To Manage Asiatic Society Of MumbaiCase Title: Kumar Chintaman Ketkar vs Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, MumbaiCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 213The Bombay High Court has held that the Charity Commissioner is empowered to appoint an interim committee to manage the affairs of a public trust where circumstances warrant such intervention. The Court observed that such directions, when issued after considering relevant material and affording a hearing, do not call for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.Default Bail Can Be Granted Even If Application Is Filed Under Regular Bail Provisions: Bombay High Court Grants Bail In NDPS CaseCase Title: Ashish Prakash Walke vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 214The Bombay High Court has held that an accused can be granted default bail even if the application is filed under regular bail provisions, provided the necessary grounds are pleaded. The Court observed that in matters concerning personal liberty, technicalities regarding the form of application cannot defeat the right to seek bail.Rights Of Developer To Earn Profit In Redevelopment Project Not Above Society Members' Right To Safe Housing: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s Pioneer Constructions vs Sahakarnagar Co-operative Housing Society LtdCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 215The Bombay High Court recently while refusing interim relief to a developer, who did not 'move even a brick' in a redevelopment project for nearly 13 years, held that when the rights of a developer to earn profit by selling flats in a redevelopment project are pitted against the rights of the society members to live in safer and better homes, the rights of the latter must prevail.“Human Life Is Not Less Important”: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To MD, Directors In Nagpur Factory Blast CaseCase Title: Sanjay Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 216The Bombay High Court on Monday (April 27) refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Managing Director, CEO and three Directors of the SBL Energy Limited, who apprehend arrest in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against them by the Nagpur Police after a massive explosion took place in the explosives manufacturing factory, killing 17 workers.Limiting Compensation In Case Of Damage By Wild Animals To Only A Few Species Violates Article 14 : Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mahadeo vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 217The Bombay High Court has held that restricting compensation for crop and tree damage only to certain specified wild animals, while excluding others such as birds, is violative of Article 14. The Court observed that such classification has no reasonable nexus with the object of compensating farmers for loss caused by wild...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 27 - May 03, 2026

Narsi Benwal

Tags