LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 06 to July 12, 2026

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 322]Nominal IndexXYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310State of Maharashtra vs Chetan Yashwantrao Pagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 311Suka Mahadu Khade vs Bababai Tukaram Shevre, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 312Dharampal Sharma vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 313Zal Sam Cooper vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 314Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Vishwas Yeshwant Dhomse, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 315Preity G Zinta vs Google LLC, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 316Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rohidas Ambadas Chavan, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 317Dr. Satish Bhide vs Ravindra M. Pande, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 318Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 319Rameshkumar Hanjarimal Rathod vs Smt. Kantabai Lalchand Gandhi, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 320Debashish Devnarayan Ghosh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 321Altaf Shaikh vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 322Final Orders/Judgments:"Legally Competent To Make A Choice" : Bombay High Court Aids Adult Woman Who Left Home To Avoid Forced MarriageCase Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310A 21-year-old woman, being an adult is legally competent to decide where she wishes to reside, whom she must marry etc and thus, her parents and the State cannot compel her to make a choice against her wish, the Bombay High Court held while directing the Mumbai Police not to entertain a 'missing persons' complaint about a young Muslim woman, who left her parents' home from Hyderabad to avoid marrying as per their choice.'Impulsive Young Men Lured By Wealth, Not Professional Killers': Bombay High Court Commutes Death Penalty In Kidnap-Murder CaseCase Title: State of Maharashtra vs Chetan Yashwantrao PagareCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 311The Bombay High Court recently, while commuting the death sentence of two men to 30 years jail term— for kidnapping and killing a young boy, observed that the two convicts were 'typical young men' who were 'baffled' as their plan to become wealthy did not work and so for 'immediate solution' they killed the boy.Bombay High Court Refuses Claim Over Tribal Land, Says Notarised 99-Year Lease Agreement Has No Evidentiary ValueCase Title: Suka Mahadu Khade vs Bababai Tukaram ShevreCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 312The Bombay High Court has exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to dismiss a revision application pending before the Revenue Minister, observing that such a course was necessary to subserve the ends of justice and curtail further litigation. The Court upheld the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner refusing to recognise the petitioners' claim over tribal land, finding that the transaction relied upon by them was unsupported by credible evidence.Executive Instructions Can't Retrospectively Override Statutory Land Conversion Rules: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Dharampal Sharma vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 313The Bombay High Court has held that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a land conversion order validly passed under statutory rules. The Court observed that a Government Resolution cannot retrospectively override the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Occupancy Class-II and Leasehold Lands into Occupancy Class-I Lands) Rules, 2019 or defeat vested rights accrued upon compliance with the statutory scheme.Municipal Council's Financial Constraints No Ground To Deny Compensation For Land Used As DP Road: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Zal Sam Cooper vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 314The Bombay High Court has held that the financial burden on a Municipal Council cannot be a ground to deny just compensation to a landowner whose property has been reserved and continuously used as a Development Plan (DP) Road without acquisition. The Court observed that constitutional entitlement to just compensation cannot be made contingent upon the magnitude of the financial liability that may fall upon the acquiring authority.'Dismissal Shockingly Disproportionate For 240 Day-Absence': Bombay High Court Awards ₹15 Lakhs CompensationCase Title: Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Vishwas Yeshwant DhomseCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 315The Bombay High Court has held that dismissal from service is a shockingly disproportionate punishment for the misconduct of unauthorized absence for 240 days, particularly where the employee had rendered long years of service, and no other serious charges ultimately survived. The Court substituted the punishment of dismissal with a lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.'Infringes Her Privacy': Bombay High Court Directs Take Down Of AI-Generated Visuals, Deepfakes & Morphed Pictures Of Actor Preity ZintaCase Title: Preity G Zinta vs Google LLC Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 316The Bombay High Court in an interim order on Wednesday (July 8) directed taken...

LiveLaw Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 06 to July 12, 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: July 06 to July 12, 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