Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 11 to May 17, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251 - 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261Nominal IndexKamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256Geeta Kampani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 257Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 258Aditi Sanjaysingh Bais vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 260Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261Final Orders/JudgmentsBombay High Court Refuses To Stay Tender Process For 'Cluster Redevelopment' Of Over 5,000 Societies In MumbaiCase Title: Kamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development AuthorityCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251In a significant order, the Bombay High Court earlier this week, refused to stay the operation of the tenders floated for the integrated cluster development of more than 5,000 housing societies in the plush Bandra Reclamation and Worli areas in Mumbai. A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Shriram Modak said that it would be hearing the matter finally and therefore, refused to stay the tenders, which were floated on April 7 and the bids likely to be opened on May 20.Bombay High Court 'Shocked' Over Conduct Of Litigant Seeking Stay On Sir Ratan Tata Trust Board Meeting; Plea WithdrawnCase Title: Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (May 13) disposed of as withdrawn a petition which sought stay on the May 16 high stakes board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), after expressing displeasure over the 'conduct' of the petitioner. A vacation court presided over by the division bench of Justice Advait Sethna and Justice Sandesh Patil was 'shocked' to note that the petitioner Suresh Patilkhede, who sought a stay on the meeting on the ground that some representations have already been made against the formation of the SRTT board of directors, was not the one who had filed the representation before the Charity Commissioner and rather the said representations were made by some other third party.“Elite Form Of Coercion”: Bombay HC Says Courts Cannot Be Used By Tenants To Pressure Landlords Into Recognising Developer's RightsCase Title: Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater MumbaiCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on tenants seeking impleadment of a new developer in redevelopment proceedings despite the absence of any privity of contract between the developer and the landlords. The Court observed that the application was “nothing else but an elite form of coercion and extortion” and amounted to abuse of the process of law.Bombay High Court Flags 'Casual Probe' Into Alleged Fabrication Of Court Orders, Seeks Further InvestigationCase Title: Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254The Bombay High Court has observed that when there are allegations regarding the fabrication of orders of the High Court, the Court cannot remain a “mute spectator” to a casual or predetermined investigation. The Court observed that where prima facie material indicates fabrication of court orders, the investigating agency is expected to conduct a serious and fair investigation aimed at identifying the real culprit.Merely Taking Away Seized Tractor From Police Custody Doesn't Make One A 'Sand Smuggler': Bombay High Court Quashes DetentionCase Title: Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255The Bombay High Court has held that merely taking away a seized tractor from police custody does not by itself make a person a “sand smuggler” within the meaning of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The Court observed that unless the statutory ingredients relating to unauthorised extraction, transportation, storage or related activities concerning sand are satisfied, preventive detention under the MPDA Act cannot be sustained.[Mines & Minerals Act] 'Fresh Auction Not Required For Disposing Of Mining Dumps Created Under Approved Plan': Bombay High CourtCase Title: The Goa Foundation vs State of GoaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a fresh auction is not mandatory for the disposal of inventoried mining dumps created pursuant to mining operations carried out under an approved mining plan. The Court observed that where such dumps are depicted in the approved mining plan, and statutory...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 11 to May 17, 2026

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 11 to May 17, 2026

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers