Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 464 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 478

Nominal Index

Kannamwar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

Vivek Prakash Padalwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

Mukesh W Siyal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 467

Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 468

In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 469

Sunil Sundar Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 470

Kaustubh Shivkumar Vibhute vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 471

Sanjay Narang vs Joint Sub-Registrar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 472

Tansukhlal Pannalal Jain vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 473

Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 474

Dr Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 475

State of Maharashtra vs Jitendra @ Pappu Babulal Shinde, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 476

Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan vs Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 477

M/s. Pharmed Limited vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 478

Final Orders/Judgments

'Citizens Have Right To Clean Streets': Bombay High Court Flags Inactive Civic Machinery, Calls For Action Against Public Garbage Dumping

Case Title: Kannamwar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Association Ltd. vs Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

The Bombay High Court has directed the Municipal Commissioner to fix accountability of Ward Officers and their subordinate officers for failing to prevent or clear litter, trash and unauthorised dumping of garbage on public streets and pavements. The Court also called upon the Municipal Corporation to activate a mechanism for launching prosecutions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the MMC Act and environmental laws against persons involved in illegal dumping.

Benefit Under Caste Certificate Nullified By Scrutiny Committee Can't Be Withdrawn Until 30 Days After Rejection Of Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vivek Prakash Padalwar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

The Bombay High Court has held that benefits granted on the basis of a caste certificate cannot be withdrawn until 30 days after rejection of an appeal challenging its invalidation by the Scrutiny Committee. The Court, relying on Section 10(5) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, directed that the benefits granted to the Petitioner could not be withdrawn while his appeal against invalidation of his Tribe Certificate was pending.

Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Threatening Cop After Mobile Video Shows ₹300 Bribe Demand

Case Title: Mukesh W Siyal vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

The Bombay High Court has quashed a chargesheet against a man accused of offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the IPC, observing that mobile phone footage and WhatsApp conversations prima facie showed that the complainant-police constable had demanded ₹300 from him for returning his driving licence. The Court observed that a false case of criminal intimidation had thereafter been foisted on the accused, and found the prosecution story “completely unbelievable” and “false and concocted”.

Bombay High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Noise Pollution Caused Due To Religious Processions

Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 467

The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 21) took suo motu cognisance of the issue of noise pollution caused particularly during religious processions in Mumbai and other cities across Maharashtra. A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale has ordered the Maharashtra Government to spell out what steps it has taken particularly for containing Noise Pollution caused due to DJs during the religious processions.

PMLA | Arrest Is 'Drastic Action', ED Can't Abandon S.50 Interrogation And Arrest Accused On Same Material: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha vs Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 468

Observing that the power to arrest is a 'drastic action', the Bombay High Court has made it clear to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) sleuths that once they invoke powers under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to record statements, summon an individual etc, they must first satisfy the said provision and subsequently proceed to invoke powers to arrest under section 19.

Need 'Civilised' Celebrations: Bombay High Court Bans Firecrackers, Laser Lights In Religious Processions; Directs ₹1 Lakh Deposit, Prosecution

Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 469

Festivals in Maharashtra would henceforth be celebrated in a more 'civilised' manner, as the Bombay High Court said on Tuesday (September 22) while imposing a total ban on use of firecrackers, laser light, loud music, any musical instrument causing noise pollution, during religious processions irrespective of religion and festivals across the State.

'Instagram Chat With Student Cannot Be Sole Material To Deny Bail': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Tuition Teacher In POCSO Case

Case Title: Sunil Sundar Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 470

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a senior citizen running private tuition classes, who was booked under Sections 4, 8, 10 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, observing that an Instagram chat relied upon by the prosecution could not be the sole material for denying bail. The Court noted that the chat did not explicitly describe the alleged offence or state its time, place or nature.

Can't Use Courts To Recover Money: Bombay High Court Says Costs Should Be Imposed In Pleas To Quash Matrimonial, Commercial FIRs

Case Title: Kaustubh Shivkumar Vibhute vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 471

Observing that 'courts' cannot be used as 'recovery mechanisms', the Bombay High Court recently opined that courts must impose costs in case of quashing First Information Report (FIR) on mutual consent, particularly in commercial and matrimonial disputes.

Collector Cannot Insist On 'NOC' From Housing Society As Precondition To Register Court-Ordered Consent Decree: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Narang vs Joint Sub-Registrar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 472

The Bombay High Court has held that the Collector cannot insist on a 'No-Objection' from a co-operative housing society as a pre-condition for registration of a Consent Decree, when there is no statutory provision, rule, regulation or notification mandating such requirement. The Court observed that the Respondents' stance amounted to an obstructionist approach in the execution and implementation of a legally binding decree.

Magistrate Cannot Revert To Pre-Cognizance Stage And Invoke S.156(3) Cr.P.C. Once Inquiry Is Taken Up U/ S 202: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Tansukhlal Pannalal Jain vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 473

The Bombay High Court has held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of a complaint and proceeds under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage and invoke Section 156(3) to direct police investigation. The Court observed that the Magistrate's order directing investigation under Section 156(3) after calling for a report under Section 202 was contrary to the scheme of the Cr.P.C.

'State Best Equipped To Decide Upon Land Requirement For Airport': Bombay High Court Rejects Farmers' Challenge To Purandar Airport Site

Case Title: Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 474

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge by farmers to the selection of “Site 1A” for the proposed Greenfield Airport at Purandar, Pune, holding that the choice of site, alignment and project feasibility fall within the domain of experts and the State's policy decision. The Court observed that it would not substitute its own assessment for that of technical experts or Government authorities in the absence of bad faith, colourable exercise of executive power, statutory violation or non-compliance with environmental norms.

Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctors Booked For Switching Off Oxygen Supply

Case Title: Dr Ramesh Kisanrao Sonawane vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 475

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 23) refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against three men of the same family, booked for switching off the oxygen supply of an ICU ward in a hospital in Pune. Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale said that there was a prima facie strong case against the three men, all of whom are practising doctors.

2016 Kopardi Gang Rape Case: Bombay High Court Judges To Visit Spot Of Incident Before Hearing Final Arguments In Death Reference

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Jitendra @ Pappu Babulal Shinde

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 476

Before hearing the final arguments in the appeals filed by the convicts in the infamous Kopardi gang rape case challenging their death sentence, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 22) said it will first visit the spot where the minor girl was allegedly ravished and killed by the convicts.

Preventive Detention Cannot Rest On Bare Assumption That Detenu Will Obtain Bail: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan vs Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 477

The Bombay High Court has held that preventive detention cannot be sustained where the Detaining Authority's satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail was based only on the assumption that the offence was not compulsorily punishable with death sentence. The Court observed that such satisfaction was not based on cogent material relating to the investigation.

NPPA Cannot Impose Blanket Price Ceiling Without Following DPCO Mechanism: Bombay High Court Quashes 2009 Notification

Case Title: M/s. Pharmed Limited vs Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 478

The Bombay High Court has held that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) could not impose a blanket price ceiling on a formulation without following the mechanism prescribed under paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO 1995). The Court held that the NPPA's notification dated January 30, 2009 was ultra vires the DPCO 1995 and quashed the same, along with the demand notices seeking recovery of alleged overcharged amounts.

Other Developments:

Plea In Bombay High Court To Quash 14 Orders Passed By CEC Gyanesh Kumar Despite Objections Of 2 ECs

A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court challenges 14 actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar despite recorded objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, raising questions over the collective functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).