Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

Nominal Index:

Project Revolt LLP vs Bureau of Indian Standards, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

Rohit Abhijit Oze vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

Prashant Vasantrao Salunkhe vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

State of Maharashtra vs Anil Shridhar Gaikwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

Om Education Society vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

Rohan P. Pai Dhungat vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

Maijabeen Abdul Quaiyum Khan vs M/s. Ajit Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

Ashok Gangadhar Puranik vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

Shivaji Maruti Kamble vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

Villayati Ram Mittal vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

Shashikant Anant Kale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

Rahul Ganesh Mehta vs Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

Jhang Union International LLC FZ vs LPG Amir Gas, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

Final Orders/Judgments:

'Helmets Not Compliant With Indian Standards Cannot Be Sold': Bombay High Court Allows Return Of Imported Helmets, Bars Sale In Market

Case Title: Project Revolt LLP vs Bureau of Indian Standards

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

The Bombay High Court has held that helmets which do not conform to the Indian Standards prescribed under the Quality Control Order, 2020 cannot be permitted to be sold or used after June 1, 2021, even if they were imported before the said date. The Court, however, permitted that the seized helmets be returned to the petitioner subject to the condition that they shall be destructed/disposed of in such a manner which is permitted in law.

Drunken Driving | 0.1mg Above Prescribed Alcohol Limit Not Enough To Face Criminal Trial: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rohit Abhijit Oze vs State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition (Stamp) 13733 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 25-year-old student for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that subjecting him to a criminal trial when his breath alcohol reading was only 0.1 mg above the statutory limit would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

Bombay High Court Constitutes Committee To Examine Kopeshwar Temple Restoration Works, 'Humongous' Expenditure On Unrelated Projects

Case Title: Prashant Vasantrao Salunkhe vs Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

The Bombay High Court recently constituted a committee of five advocates to visit the 12th Century built historic Kopeshwar Temple in Khidrapur, Kolhapur and conduct an independent fact-finding exercise to ascertain the present status of the temple's infrastructure so that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could be asked to take proper steps for the resurrection of the said temple.

SC's One-Time Protection From Detention For Low Attendance Applies To Law Students Of All Semesters, Not Just Final Year: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

The Bombay High Court has clarified that the Supreme Court judgment providing "one-time protection" to law students, who were prevented from appearing in their exams during the academic year of 2025-2026, will apply to students missing any of the semester-end exams and not be confined only to "final exams."

Minor Sexual Assault Victim's Inability To Describe Sexual Act Is No Ground To Discard Her Testimony: Bombay High Court Reverses Acquittal

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Anil Shridhar Gaikwad 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

The Bombay High Court recently held that a minor rape victim's testimony cannot be discarded just because she could not properly describe the sexual act to which she was subjected to. The High Court therefore, reversed a trial court's judgment and convicted a man for raping a minor girl in a 2012 case.

RTE Reimbursement Delays: Bombay High Court Directs Maharashtra Govt To Review Mechanism, Prescribe Timelines

Case Title: Om Education Society vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Government to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing reimbursement mechanism under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court suggested examination of the issues of prescription of definite timelines at every stage of processing reimbursement proposals and the adequacy of a monitoring mechanism for ensuring compliance with such timelines.

'Absolute Certainty' That Convict Won't Reoffend Impossible; Such Requirement Would Bar Premature Release: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rohan P. Pai Dhungat vs State of Goa

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

A condition mandating the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to opine with 'absolute certainty' on a prisoner's potential to not re-offend if releases from jail would result in a situation wherein a convicted person would never see freedom and would rather die within the prison walls, held the Bombay High Court while quashing Goa Government's order refusing to allow premature release of a law student, who was convicted in a kidnapping and murder case dating back to 2006.

'Challenge To Decree As Nullity Due To Abatement Must Be Raised Before Executing Court U/S 47 CPC, Not By Separate Suit': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Maijabeen Abdul Quaiyum Khan vs M/s. Ajit Developer Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

The Bombay High Court has held that an objection to the execution of a decree on the ground that it is a nullity by reason of abatement of the suit has to be adjudicated by the executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC and cannot be raised by way of a separate suit. The Court observed that Section 47 and Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 vest the powers in executing court to decide the question of undivided right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs in the subject property.

Bombay High Court Pulls Up CIDCO For 'Obstinate Approach' To Avoid Land Acquisition Compensation Payment

Case Title: Ashok Gangadhar Puranik vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

The Bombay High Court has expressed its displeasure at the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) for attempting to avoid payment of compensation to the petitioners. The Court treated the assurance of payment given by the CIDCO as an undertaking given to the Court and directed the State authorities to disburse the amount to the petitioners.

“Can Understand The Exigency”: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Over Fake Covid Negative Reports Made During Lockdown, Imposes Costs

Case Title: Shivaji Maruti Kamble vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against three members of a housing society, who had forged a false RT-PCR Covid19 'negative' report for themselves, to ease and evade security protocols of their society. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav while quashing the FIR against Shivaji Kamble, Prathamesh Parab and Vikrant Tambe, observed that the trio prepared the fabricated Covid19 test reports in view of the exigency prevailing during the days of the Covid19 led lockdown restrictions.

Replacing Pages In Notarised Pleadings Is Tampering: Bombay High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Party, Lawyer & Notary For "Shocking" Conduct

Case Title: Villayati Ram Mittal vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

The Bombay High Court has held that once a document is notarised, neither the Notary nor any party is permitted to replace any page, and that replacing any page amounts to tampering with the original pleadings served upon the defendants. The Court observed that no party can be permitted to tamper with pleadings and documents in such a manner and described the conduct of the plaintiff, advocate on record and Notary as “shocking and unacceptable”.

Bombay High Court Directs BMC To Mandatorily Mention Appeal Remedy In Disciplinary Orders

Case Title: Shashikant Anant Kale vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

The Bombay High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation to specifically mention the remedy of appeal, along with the relevant provision under the Rules, in every disciplinary order passed against its employees. The Court observed that the 2015 Rules provide a mechanism of appeal against an order imposing the penalty of termination or removal from service, and the State Government cannot be treated as the Appellate Authority under Section 520B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.

Agreement Where Developer Retains Share In Property Is Not Pure Construction Contract; Specific Performance Not Barred: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rahul Ganesh Mehta vs Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

The Bombay High Court has held that a development agreement under which the developer is to develop the entire plot, hand over 50% of the area to the owner and retain the balance 50% cannot be construed as a pure construction contract for applying Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court observed that when there was no clause in the agreement requiring satisfaction of the plaintiff's credentials as a developer, the plaintiff was not required to prove the same.

Bombay High Court Orders Immediate Discharge Of LPG Cargo From Arrested Vessel At Jaigarh Port Citing Risk Of Fire, Explosion

Case Title: Jhang Union International LLC FZ vs LPG Amir Gas

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

The Bombay High Court has issued urgent directions for immediate discharge of LPG from the arrested vessel LPG Amir Gas at Jaigarh Port, in view of the risk of fire or explosion and the “catastrophic consequences” that a large-scale release of LPG could result in. The Court further directed the concerned disaster management authorities and the Director General of Shipping to extend full cooperation and assistance for safe discharge of the cargo and to plan for its discharge in case the security amount ordered by the Court was not deposited.

Other Developments:

Bombay High Court Directs BCI To Scrutinise & Clear Pending Affiliation Approvals For Law Colleges

The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to forthwith scrutinize and process the applications submitted by four law colleges seeking approval and, if the applications are found in order, grant the necessary approvals by August 6, 2026. The Court further directed the Directorate of Higher Education, Pune to verify the approvals and include the approved colleges in its list.

Bombay High Court Justice Gautam Ankhad Recuses From Hearing Pleas Challenging Public Safety Act Over Claims Of Stifling Free Speech

Bombay High Court judge Justice Gautam Ankhad on Monday (August 10) recused himself from hearing a bunch of petitions filed by the Indian National Congress (INC), the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) and also the Communist Party of India (Marxist) challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, (MSPSA) 2025

Bombay High Court Seeks FSSAI's Response To Pleas Challenging Ban On Old Monk & McDowell's Rum; No Interim Relief

The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 10) granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) time till August 24 to respond to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum, challenging orders prohibiting the manufacture and sale of fresh stocks of the two products.

"Move On" And End Such Commercial Disputes: Bombay High Court In Vijay Mallya's 2020 Plea Against SBI Over Asset Seizure

The Bombay High Court while issuing notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday (August 12) orally opined that the commercial disputes pending between former liquor baron Vijay Mallya and the consortium of banks must be put to an end, and that the parties involved must 'move on' as otherwise it will affect the country's economy.

'Recurring Issue': Bombay High Court Questions Whether FSSAI Or Customs Should Draw Samples For Testing Imported Food

The Bombay High Court has observed that the issue of whether samples of imported food items should be drawn by authorised officers appointed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) or by Customs Officers and sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) is a recurring one. The Court, therefore, directed the Revenue Authority to file its stand on the issue.

Growing Stray Dog Population Root Of Problem, Aggressively Implement Sterilisation Programme: Bombay High Court To Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) observed that the major problem with the stray dogs menace is the increasing population of stray dogs and therefore, ordered the Maharashtra Government to aggressively implement the 'sterilisation' program as mandated under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules of 2023.

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Ex-TISS Student Booked For Raising Slogans To Release Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid

The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) granted interim protection from arrest to Kamakhya Prasad Das, a former TISS student, who was booked for raising slogans "to free Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam." Single-judge Justice Prafulla Khubalkar agreed to hear Das' plea seeking anticipatory bail on August 31 and granted him interim protection from arrest in the meantime.

Bombay High Court Reserves Verdict In Challenge To Immersion Of PoP God Idols In Natural Water Bodies

The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 14) closed for orders, a batch of petitions, seeking a complete ban on immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) made Ganesh idols in natural water bodies. The High Court has however, clarified that its last year's order which permitted immersion of only six feet and above height PoP idols in natural water bodies and rest (below six feet) in artificial tanks, to be implemented strictly by the Maharashtra Government in the forthcoming Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations.