While refusing to grant interim relief to a Thane-based Udupi restaurant, whose licence has been suspended by the Food & Drugs Administration (FDA) for serving the recently banned 'analogue paneer', the Bombay High Court on Friday (August 21) said such hotels must tell the customers by putting up boards that they are not serving what is being shown in the menu card. 

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad asked the hotel to 'suffer' for sometime as it has made customers suffer by serving them analogue paneer instead of what they actually ordered - a dairy paneer. 

Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade representing the FDA told the judges that the paneer samples tested from the restaurant in Thane's Wagle Estate, showed that it was not original paneer made of dairy products but it was an analogue paneer. He highlighted that oil mixed with chemicals are used to make such duplicate paneer which is already banned across Maharashtra for a period of one year.

Irked to note this, the bench pulled up the restaurant, observing, "Just for little price difference, you do this?"

On Kakade submitting that the restaurant has an alternate remedy to appeal the licence suspension order before the FDA Commissioner, the counsel for the eatery informed the judges that the ban on use of analogue paneer was notified on August 1 and the same was found in their hotel in the month of June.

However, the bench did not seemed to be impressed with the contention. 

"But you are still making people eat something by making them believe it is paneer. You are making people eat something rotten. Why don't you advertise on your sign board that you sell analog paneer, no original food is sold here... People should know what they are being served... People read ingredients and think it tastes good and then they realise it's not original.... So now you too suffer for sometime as you made people suffer by eating this then you also suffer. No interim relief. If you make people eat this without indicating…You should be penalised," a visibly enraged ACJ Ghuge remarked. 

The bench therefore issued notice to the FDA and asked Kakade to file a detailed reply to the instant petition by September 2. The matter has been kept for further consideration on September 7.

Case Title: Udupi Swaad Restaurant vs Maharashtra FDA [Writ Petition (Lodging No) 29022 of 2026]

A decision of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) rejecting a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (POSH) Act, 2013 at the threshold with a finding that 'no sexual element' is involved in the plaint, without conducting an enquiry, would still amount to a 'recommendation' under the Act and the said decision can be 'appealed' before an Industrial Court, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 19). 

Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne therefore, held that if such a decision of the ICC is not construed as a 'recommendation' it would leave an aggrieved woman 'remediless.'

The judge turned down the argument that the decision of the ICC to reject the complaint at the threshold cannot be construed to be a recommendation as no enquiry as mandated under section 11 of the POSH Act, is conducted. 

"If the Internal Committee does not conduct inquiry in the manner prescribed under Section 11, the same may vitiate its decision/recommendation. However, mere non-conduct of inquiry in respect of complaint of sexual harassment by the Internal Committee would not save its decision from the ambit of the expression 'recommendation' under Section 13 of the POSH Act. Even if Internal Committee does not conduct an inquiry but still makes a decision on a complaint of sexual harassment, such decision would be a 'recommendation' within the meaning of Section 13(2) or (3) of the POSH Act," the bench held. 

To illustrate, the judge explained, that upon receipt of a complaint of sexual harassment, the ICC writes to the employer to terminate the services of the Respondent-employee without holding inquiry, such course of action of the committee would assume characteristic of a 'recommendation' and the mere vice of non-holding of inquiry would not save such action from the ambit of the expression 'recommendation' used under Section 13(3) of the POSH Act.

On the same analogy, the judge added, "If the Internal Committee, upon receipt of complaint of sexual harassment, rules that the complaint does not constitute sexual harassment of the complainant, such ruling by the Internal Committee would also assume characteristic of a recommendation made under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act. This is because the employer acts on such decision of the Internal Committee and does not take any further action in the manner as per Section 13(2) of the POSH Act. Therefore, a ruling by the Internal Committee that the complaint does not constitute sexual harassment, which is arrived at without holding any inquiry, would still be a 'recommendation' within the meaning of Section 13(2) of the POSH Act."

Further, the judge pointed out that the legislative object is not to reward the Internal Committee which violates mandate of Section 11(1) (conducting enquiry) for making its decision challenge free and thus, when the Internal Committee violates mandate of Section 11(1) and makes a decision without holding inquiry, which may result in adverse action against the Respondent-employee, some remedy has to be provided to the affected employee by treating such decision of the Internal Committee as a recommendation within Section 13(3) of the POSH Act.

"In my view therefore, provisions of POSH Act must not only be interpreted liberally but in the event of any difficulty, the same must be interpreted in favour of class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. Therefore, a plain and strict interpretation of Sections 13 and 18 of the POSH Act would result in a situation where an aggrieved woman is rendered remediless against a decision of the ICC, essentially on account of ICC's failure to conduct an inquiry. In such circumstances, the Courts ought to adopt a liberal interpretation of the provisions of the POSH Act so as to give the character of a 'recommendation' to a decision of the ICC holding that the complaint does not disclose any sexual element," the bench emphasised. 

In the instant case, the bench noted, that the employer has taken cognisance of the complaint and the same has been forwarded to the ICC. The reference was in fact made by the employer to an external ICC member since there was a conflict involved qua one of the members of ICC and accordingly, the ICC headed by an external member, took cognisance of the complaint and has rendered its decision on the same.

"Its conclusion is a recommendation as held and the same would accordingly be appealable. In the Appeal, the Industrial Court would decide whether the ICC is right in concluding that the complaint does not involve an element of sexual harassment," the judge made it clear. 

The High Court's verdict arises from an petition filed by some of the employees of Maple Infra, an infrastructure investment trust, who challenged the decision of an Industrial Court pronounced in May 2026, wherein the Industrial Court held the decision of an ICC on a complaint of one of the female employees, to be appealable under section 18 of the POSH Act.

The employees contended that the female employee's complaint was rightly dismissed or rejected by the ICC at the threshold as there was no 'sexual element' in her plaint against one of the senior employees of the company. However, the Industrial Court while deciding the applications on maintainability of the female employee's appeal challenging the ICC's October 2025 decision communicated through an email, held that the complainant was indeed working in an 'uncomfortable' environment and ordered the ICC to reconsider the complaint afresh. 

By the detailed 64-page judgment, Justice Marne held that the ICC's October 2025 decision via email can be held to be a 'recommendation' and thus is appealable before the Industrial Court. The judge, however, held that the Industrial Court while deciding the issue of maintainability of the appeal could have avoided entering into the merits of the appeal. He therefore, ordered the Industrial Court to again consider afresh the complainant woman's appeal against the ICC Decision. 

With these observations, the bench disposed of the petitions. 

Appearance:

Senior Advocates Sharan Jagtiani and Ashish Kamat along with Advoctes Madhavi Nalluri, Shraddha Achliya, Ankoosh Mehta, Mansi Chheda, Arunima Phadke and Ankita Singhania instructed by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas appeared for the Petitioner Employees. 

Advocates Karl Tamboly, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Aseem Naphade, Vilasini Balasubramanian and Victoria Gonsalves instructed by Jayakar & Partners represented the Complainant. 

Assistant Government Pleaders VR Raje and AA Nadkarni represented the State. 

Case Title: Anup Vikal vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 7430 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 396

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 19) slammed the Maharashtra Government for its 'appalling apathy' in not taking any effective steps for the protection of around 228 school going children, who walk almost 30 kilometres daily from the Sahyadri Tiger Reserve (STR) and are exposed to possible wild animals attack.

A division bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj Dhote noted that at least 228 students are compelled to walk for nearly four hours a day to reach their schools and return back home by walking through the areas which are prone to human and wild animals conflict. 

"The maximum distance is traveled by a child for about 30 kilometers to study in 6th standard, and he walks 4 hours daily, as no transport facility is available. The apathy of the State Government is appalling. There is absolutely no concern for the safety of the children as not even the minimum transport facilities are made available for the students, who are traveling for such a long distance for the purpose of education," the judges remarked in the order. 

The bench made the observation while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed earlier this year, highlighting the ordeal of school going children, who have to walk through the Chandoli National Park and Sahyadri Tiger Reserve. The PIL was filed while relying on news items published in two Marathi newspapers in March this year. 

On April 2, the bench, then headed by Justice Madhav Jamdar had granted a week's time to the Collector and the Forest Department to identify 'dangerous schools' which are prone to wild attacks in seven days and to further jointly deploy Safe School Transport (SST) for the school going children, escorted by a dedicated Rapid Response Team (RRT). A further directive was issue to provide an Advanced Life Support Ambulance to be stationed at a primary health centre. 

However, when the matter was called out the bench noted that the said April 2 order was not at all complied with. 

"Despite the order having been passed on April 2, 2026, absolutely nothing has been done by the District Collector and the Forest Department to identify the dangerous schools or to deploy safe school transport for the school children escorted by a dedicated RRT," the bench recorded in the order. 

Further the judges noted that the petitioner furnished an affidavit spelling out that a total of 228 students walk through the STR region to reach five such dangerous schools. These students are travelling from eight villages across Sangli district and thus face continuous exposure to wildlife attack.

"Being concerned with this situation, the order of April 2, 2026 was passed, which has been conveniently disregarded by the Respondents Authorities. We cannot countenance such a conduct on behalf of the District Collector and the Forest Department. There is no Affidavit, which has been filed by the District Collector and the Forest Department, showing compliance of the said order. We direct the District Collector and the Forest Department to file Affidavit within a period of one week from today, submitting an explanation for non-compliance of the order dated April 2, 2026," the bench ordered. 

While placing the matter for further hearing on August 5, the bench made it clear that if it is not satisfied with the explanation of the concerned authorities, it will be constrained to take a very serious view of the matter.

Appearance: 

Advocates Raviraj Biraje and Kartik Patil appeared for the Petitioner.

Chief Government Pleader Neha Bhide along with Assistant Government Pleader TJ Kapre represented the State. 

Case Title: Harish Bhimrao Kamble vs State of Maharashtra (Public Interest Litigation 8 of 2026)

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 19) directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to allow a pre-school and day care centre to operate from a residential apartment at least for the time till the authority decides the 'change of user' application filed by the said pre-school. 

A division bench of Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Sandesh Patil has protected from eviction till six weeks, the HMI Learning Private Limited, which provides day-care and pre-school services for children of working women in the plush Powai area. 

Notably, the petitioner pre-school had received 'stop commercial activities' notices by the MHADA for running pre-school and day-care centre within four flats of the Gyanam Building in Powai area, which is constructed by MHADA. It was contended that running such commercial activities within MHADA-constructed residential buildings was impermissible. 

The bench noted that the petitioner had already applied for 'change of user' before the MHADA and the authority's counsel too confirmed the same. The bench noted that the petitioner would be filing a proper application for 'changing the user' of the said flats from 'residential' to 'commercial' so that it can run its pre-school centre in the said four flats on the building's first floor. 

The MHADA counsel too informed the bench that once such an application is received, the authority would be taking a final decision on the same within a period of two weeks. 

"Considering that the day-care centre activities are being conducted in the premises, only in the interest of justice and in the interest of the children, we permit the said activities to be carried out for a period of six weeks from today. In case the petitioners do not succeed in getting a change of user, MHADA to take appropriate action for closing down the activities subject to any legal impediment," the bench said in the order. 

The judges further granted liberty to the other residents of the housing society to file an objection to the application for change of user within a period of one week from today which shall be duly considered by MHADA.

"The Counsel for the other residents, has a strong objection to the day-care activities being conducted since the same are absolutely impermissible as admittedly no permission for change of user from residential to commercial has been obtained by the petitioners. As indicated, we are granting the limited protection only in the interest of the students and to enable the petitioners to make alternate arrangements in the meantime if they are not successful in getting a change of user," the judges clarified. 

Further the bench took note of a tagged petition, wherein, it was highlighted that four other flats namely Flat Nos.404, 804, 904 and 1004 were being used as Airbnb facility without obtaining proper permissions. It noted that the said flats were used being use for 'commercial purposes.'

"We clarify that it is open for MHADA to take appropriate action against such flats in accordance with law," the judges ordered while disposing of the two petitions. 

Appearance:

Advocates IK Tripathi, Divya Bhatia and CK Tripathi appeared for the Pre-School Centre.

Advocates Nakul Jain and Jainish Jain appeared for Original Owners of the Said Flat. 

Chief Government Pleader Anjali Helekar along with Assistant Government Pleader Varsha Sawant represented the State.

Advocates Amrut Joshi, Nidhi Singh and Mehek Chowdhary instructed by Indialaw LLP represented the Other Members Of the Society. 

Advocates PG Lad and Muralidharan Kalathil represented MHADA.

Case Title: Dhanvanti Kantilal Gada vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority [Writ Petition (L) 19795 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 397

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere annoyance or irritation between a couple will not amount to cruelty and cannot be a ground for seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, held the Bombay High Court recently while dismissing a husband's appeal against an order of a Family Court, which too had dismissed his plea seeking dissolution of his marriage on grounds of cruelty. 

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj Wakode said the allegations of cruelty cannot be considered on trivial issues and that the allegations should have the origin with reference to time, place and manner of cruelty.

"General allegations of cruelty do not constitute cruelty in the eyes of law so as to grant decree of dissolution of marriage on that premise. Mere annoyance or irritation may not constitute cruelty, rather it is a spontaneous change in human behaviour which restricts the other side to live with the spouse under the fear of endangering life or bodily injuries. Though, the word, 'cruelty' has not been defined strictly, but it has to be gathered from attending circumstances of each case. The allegation should be specific with regard to time, place and manner of committing such cruelty. The cruelty should be such in which it is not reasonably expected to live together," the judges held.

The bench was hearing a Family Court Appeal filed by a husband challenging a Family Court judgment which dismissed the husband's plea seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty. 

The bench noted that the husband claimed that he was subjected to mental cruelty by his wife on various grounds right from picking up quarrels with his old mother, to not taking care of his mother, to blaming him for not being able to conceive a child even after 10 years of marriage, to continuously forcing him to shift to Nagpur leaving his old parents. It further noted that the husband had tried to bring the wife back from her parental home yet she did not return despite his earned efforts and instead filed false FIRs before the Police accusing him and his family of domestic violence etc. 

The bench however, noted from the husband's cross-examination that he could not substantiate his allegations and instead his evidence brought on record that the wife had been to her brother's marriage in 2012 and on her return, she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house. She then made multiple efforts to cohabit however, the husband abused her and did not let her in the house. She then filed a police complaint and then the husband before the cops agreed to maintain her and cohabit with her, but subsequently retracted from his assurance and refused to permit her in the house.

The bench therefore, held that it was the husband whose behaviour caused cruelty to the wife as he did not let her in the matrimonial house and cohabit with her despite her efforts. It found that the wife in fact looked after the husband's parents when he went to office and even supported him financially and morally. 

"The evidence on record shows that it was the behaviour of the present appellant due to which the respondent constrained to leave the matrimonial house. The manner in which the appellant faced the cruelty itself is not proved. As already observed that mere annoyance or irritation or normal wear or tear difference does not constitute cruelty. The cruelty should be such in which it is not reasonably expected for the couple to live together which is absent in the present case. The allegations made by the appellant/husband are not proved and therefore, the Family Court has rightly considered that the ground of cruelty is not established by the appellant," the bench said. 

With these observations, the bench upheld the Family Court's order denying divorce on grounds of cruelty and also a directive to the husband to pay Rs 5,000 as monthly maintenance to the wife. 

Appearance:

Advocate Vidhya Umale appeared for the Husband.

Advocate Anil Thakare represented the Wife. 

Case Title: VHC vs MVC (Family Court Appeal 14 of 2016)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 398

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment