Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251 - 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261

Nominal Index

Kamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251

Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252

Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253

Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254

Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256

Geeta Kampani vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 257

Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 258

Aditi Sanjaysingh Bais vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259

Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias vs State of Goa, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 260

Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261

Final Orders/Judgments

Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay Tender Process For 'Cluster Redevelopment' Of Over 5,000 Societies In Mumbai

Case Title: Kamalpushpa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251

In 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Bombay High Court 'Shocked' Over Conduct Of Litigant Seeking Stay On Sir Ratan Tata Trust Board Meeting; Plea Withdrawn

Case Title: Suresh Tulasiram Patilkhede vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 252

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (May 13) disposed of as withdrawn a petition which sought stay on the May 16 high stakes board meeting of the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), after expressing displeasure over the 'conduct' of the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 Rights

Case Title: Shakuntala T Amrutkar vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 253

The 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 Investigation

Case Title: Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 254

The 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 Detention

Case Title: Shubham Balasaheb Kardule vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

The 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 Court

Case Title: The Goa Foundation vs State of Goa

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 256

The 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 dues including conversion fees and penalties have been paid, the State Government is entitled to permit erstwhile leaseholders to remove the dumps without conducting a fresh auction.

Police Cannot Seize Bank Accounts Under Section 102 CrPC Without Direct Link To Offence: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Geeta Kampani vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 257

The Bombay High Court has held that police cannot freeze or seize bank accounts under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without establishing a direct nexus between the seized property and the alleged offence. The Court observed that imposing an onerous condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the frozen amount while directing de-freezing of accounts frustrates the very object of such de-freezing.

Forcing Citizens To Wait For Bus Without Shelter In Extreme Weather Denies Dignified Life Under Article 21: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 258

If citizens are compelled to stand on road without proper shelter or seating, to wait for public transport like bus services, even during extreme weather conditions, the same violates their right to dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution of India, held the Bombay High Court while ordering the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) for providing proper bus stop infrastructure in the city and also basic amenities to the citizens.

Bombay High Court Issues Notice To Maha Govt On Plea Challenging Retrospective Application Of Three-Year Practice Rule In Judiciary Exam

Case Title: Aditi Sanjaysingh Bais vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 259

The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) in a writ petition challenging the retrospective application of the mandatory three-year practice requirement prescribed for the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) examination.

Bombay High Court Upholds Goa Law Giving Surviving Spouse Priority Over Parents In Intestate Succession

Case Title: Xavier Agnelo Minguel Jose Gracias vs State of Goa

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 260

The Bombay High Court at Goa has upheld the constitutional validity of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings (Amendment) Acts of 2022 and 2023, which altered the order of legal succession by placing the surviving spouse above ascendants in cases of intestate succession. The Court observed that according precedence to the surviving spouse over parents or other ascendants cannot be termed manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional merely because the legislature chose to alter the existing order of succession.

Bombay High Court Questions State's Decision Disqualifying 757 Marathi Schools From Grant-In-Aid, Says Move Undermines Push For Language

Case Title: Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 261

The Bombay High Court recently criticised the Maharashtra Government for on one hand insisting to give importance to Marathi language and on the other hand attempting to shut down Marathi medium schools by issuing two Government Resolutions (GRs) on April 1 and April 2 this year, permanently disqualifying several unaided primary and secondary schools from receiving grant-in-aid.

Other Developments

Bombay High Court Slams Mumbai Police Over Midnight Demolition Of Historic Printing Press Founded By Dr BR Ambedkar

The Bombay High Court recently rapped the Mumbai Police for its "thoughtless" affidavit justifying it's "inaction" over the sudden demolition of the printing press set up by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar at a plot in Dadar, way back in 1945. The property was demolished in the wee hours of June 25, 2016 after a crowd of 400 to 500 persons thronged the site. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata passed an order on April 30, directing the police authorities to explain why no action was taken on a complaint filed by Ambedkar's grandson on June 25, 2016 when the printing press known as Buddha Bhushan Printing Press, was being demolished in the midnight after 400 to 500 persons gathered the spot.