LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 22 - June 28, 2026

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 294 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 299]Nominal IndexShyam Vasant Kale vs The Assistant Charity Commissioner-II, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 294Jervis Fernandes vs Rumaldo Judas Agnelo Fernandes, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 295XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 296Manas Sandip Sathe vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297Suraj Deepak Mane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 298Pune Housing And Area Development Board vs Vithal Shripati Ladkat, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 299Final Orders/JudgmentsAssistant Charity Commissioner Cannot Interfere With Ongoing Trust Elections U/S 41A Of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act: High CourtCase Title: Shyam Vasant Kale vs The Assistant Charity Commissioner-IICitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 294The Bombay High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, is limited to issuing directions for the proper administration of a public trust and does not extend to interfering with an ongoing election process. The Court observed that once the election process has commenced, the Assistant Charity Commissioner cannot invoke Section 41A to quash an election notice or halt the election on the ground that the legality of the existing Managing Committee is under doubt.[Goa Municipalities Act] Power To Remove Councillor Exclusively With Govt, Cannot Be Delegated To Director Of Municipality: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Jervis Fernandes vs Rumaldo Judas Agnelo FernandesCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 295The Bombay High Court has held that the power to remove a Municipal Councillor under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, vests exclusively in the Government and cannot be exercised by the Director of Municipal Administration. The Court observed that the power under Section 44 is quasi-judicial in nature, as it entails adjudication of allegations of misconduct or disgraceful conduct and may result in removal from office and disqualification for five years.Bombay High Court Allows Termination Of 26-Week Pregnancy Considering Severe Fetal Anomalies, Mother's Financial HardshipCase Title: XYZ vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 296The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 22) permitted a married woman to terminate her 26-weeks pregnancy after noting that the woman hailed from the lower strata of the society and that her foetus suffered from severe anomalies, which would require post-delivery cardiac surgeries that she can't afford. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande allowed the woman's plea after noting that the child if born, will require medical attention but the woman expressed her inability to afford the same.Residence Proof Is Essential Requirement For Admission Under RTE's Neighbourhood Schools Quota: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Manas Sandip Sathe vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297Dismissing a petition seeking admission in a school under the 'neighbourhood' reservation provided under the Right To Education (RTE) Act, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 25) held that residential requirement is not an empty formality but is an essential eligibility criteria for admissions under the said quota, which provides admission of people from the weaker section and lower strata of the society in nearby private unaided schools. Bombay High Court Rejects Challenge To Recruitment Process For Appointment Of District Judges In MaharashtraCase Title: Suraj Deepak Mane vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 298The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge to the recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge by nomination in the Maharashtra Judicial Service. The Court held that candidates who participated in the selection process with full knowledge that it would be governed by the amendments approved by the High Court, though not formally notified on the date of the advertisement, could not challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examination.Eviction Under MHADA Act Not Automatic; Authority Must Examine Legality Of Dues Claimed By Housing Board: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Pune Housing And Area Development Board vs Vithal Shripati LadkatCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 299The Bombay High Court has held that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act is empowered to examine whether the amount claimed by the Housing Board is "lawfully due" and is not confined merely to ordering eviction. The Court observed that an allottee who receives a tenement under a government quota is not exempt from payment of the price and other lawfully recoverable components, including capitalised interest.Other Developments Bombay High Court Pulls Up Maharashtra Govt Over Drinking Water Crisis, Says Progressive State Cannot Give ExcusesEven after 75 years of independence, if a citizen has to approach a constitutional court seeking a direction to the State to provide potable...

LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 22 - June 28, 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: June 22 - June 28, 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