Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 13 To April 19, 2026

Nominal Index [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196]Mangesh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs Vidyut Metallics Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 184GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Suhas Shankar Pagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd vs The State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 186 Krishnakumar Ashar vs Archie John Varel, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 187Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 189Ejaj Urf Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 190Rescue Foundation vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 191DNS vs NNS, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 192Valencio D'Souza vs The Director, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 193Mast MPB vs Dr PMB, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 194Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 195Kartik Aryan vs Vinsm Globe Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 196Final Orders/JudgmentsLong Incarceration Alone Not Ground For Bail Once Trial Has Commenced And Is Progressing: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mangesh vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 182The Bombay High Court has held that long incarceration alone does not entitle an accused to bail where the trial has already commenced and is in progress. The Court observed that precedents granting bail on the ground of delay are distinguishable where trial had not commenced, unlike the present case.Trade Union Cannot Invoke Recovery U/S 50 MRTU & PULP Act Without Written Authorisation From Employees: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Vidyut Metallics Employees Union vs Vidyut Metallics Private LimitedCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183The Bombay High Court has held that a trade union cannot independently invoke Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP (Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, 1971) Act for the recovery of money without written authorisation from employees. The Court observed that the statutory scheme restricts the right of recovery to the employee or a person expressly authorised by him in writing.Illegal Bank Account Attachment Violates Right To Property Under Article 300A; Bombay High Court Imposes ₹25K Costs On OfficerCase Title: Nivara Infradevelopers LLP vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 184The Bombay High Court has held that continued attachment of a bank account without complying with statutory requirements violates the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court observed that such coercive action, taken in breach of mandatory legal safeguards, results in serious civil consequences and cannot be sustained.Absence Of Vishaka-Style Formal Complaint Committee Not Enough To Vitiate Sexual Misconduct Inquiry If Procedure Was Fair: Bombay High CourtCase Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Suhas Shankar Pagare Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185The Bombay High Court has held that mere absence of a Complaints Committee in the exact form contemplated under the Vishaka guidelines does not by itself vitiate a domestic inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct. The Court observed that the validity of such an inquiry depends on whether a fair procedure was followed and whether any real prejudice was caused to the employee.[Tenancy Act] Landlord's Right To Terminate Tenancy For 'Bona Fide Personal Cultivation' Extinguishes Upon Sale Of Land: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd vs The State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 186The Bombay High Court has held that a landlord's inherited right to terminate tenancy for bona fide personal cultivation extinguishes upon the sale of the land. The Court observed that once the land is sold, the requirement of personal cultivation ceases to exist, defeating the basis of such a claim.'Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Continued Against Tenant Who Has Become Co-Owner Of Property': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Krishnakumar Ashar vs Archie John Varel Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 187The Bombay High Court has held that eviction proceedings cannot be continued against a tenant who has subsequently become a co-owner of the property. The Court observed that once a tenant acquires ownership rights in the premises, even to the extent of a share, his status changes and eviction proceedings cannot be pursued against him.1993 Bombay Blasts Case: High Court Dismisses Abu Salem's Plea Seeking Premature ReleaseCase Title: Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 189The Bombay High Court today rejected the plea filed by underworld gangster and one of the prime convicts in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case, Abu Salem, who sought premature release arguing that he has already completed 25 years of imprisonment after counting the remissions and thus as per the treaty signed between the then Indian and the...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 13 To April 19, 2026

Narsi Benwal

Tags