Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 13 to July 19, 2026

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 334]Nominal IndexShreesh Kumar vs Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323Gurbir Singh vs Samar Mohammed Khadas, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 324M/s. Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. East Tradvest Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 325Arkade Developers Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 326Shakir Jamil Ahmed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 327Sachin Shivram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 328Khushbu Iddrish Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 329ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 330Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. vs Sunita Dileep Nevatia, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 331SSNA vs SAAR, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 332Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Punita Capoor, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 333Ravindra Kini vs Municipal Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 334Final Orders/JudgmentsCo-Operative Societies Act | Strangers Can Be Impleaded In Society Dispute If Necessary For Adjudication: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shreesh Kumar vs Bramha Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323The Bombay High Court has held that a Co-operative Court exercising powers under Section 94(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 can implead a person who is not covered by the categories enumerated under Section 91(1)(a) to (e), if such person's presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the dispute. The Court, however, cautioned that such power is not unbridled and cannot be exercised to enlarge the scope of the dispute or bring within the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction matters which it is otherwise incompetent to adjudicate.Bombay High Court Upholds Member's Expulsion From Mumbai Press Club For Facilitating Meeting Of Bhima-Koregaon AccusedCase Title: Gurbir Singh vs Samar Mohammed KhadasCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 324The Bombay High Court has refused to stay the expulsion of a member from the Mumbai Press Club, holding that it is the prerogative of the Club to determine what conduct brings the institution into disrepute. The Court observed that where the Managing Committee has acted within its jurisdiction and followed the procedure prescribed by the Club's bye-laws, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Club on whether a member's conduct is disreputable.Filing Vakalatnama Is Not Waiver Of Service Of Summons; Limitation To File Written Statement Starts After Proper Service: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. East Tradvest Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 325The Bombay High Court has held that the mere filing of a Vakalatnama or an affidavit-in-reply to an interim application does not, by itself, amount to a waiver of service of writ of summons or trigger the limitation prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for filing a written statement. The Court observed that the period for filing the written statement commences only upon proper service of the writ of summons, an express waiver thereof, or an order of the Court directing the defendant to file the written statement.Oral Instructions Can't Override Statutory Duty: Bombay High Court Pulls Up Municipal Corp For Delaying Occupation CertificateCase Title: Arkade Developers Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 326The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure over the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) keeping an application for an Occupation Certificate (OC) pending solely on the basis of alleged oral instructions issued by the Additional Chief Secretary. The Court observed that statutory authorities are required to act strictly in accordance with law and that oral instructions are inconsistent with the principles of transparency, accountability and the rule of law.S.50 NDPS Act | Oral Refusal To Be Searched Before Magistrate Or Gazetted Officer Insufficient: Bombay High Court Grants BailCase Title: Shakir Jamil Ahmed Shaikh vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 327The Bombay High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, holding that an oral waiver of the right available under Section 50 of the Act is not sufficient. The Court observed that where an accused elects not to exercise the right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, such waiver must be reduced into writing and duly signed by the accused.Bombay High Court Suspends Sentence Of Mother, Alleged Paramour Convicted Of Drowning 10-Year-Old Boy In CanalCase Title: Sachin Shivram Kumbhar vs State of MaharashtraCitation: ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 13 to July 19, 2026

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 13 to July 19, 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