The Bombay High Court disposed of two writ petitions against the Pune Collector and the Collector, State Excise, Pune after the State said, on instructions, that 25 September 2026 will be a ‘Dry Day’ and that the prohibition on retail liquor sale on 14 September 2026 will operate till 4.00 pm (paras 4, 6). The petitioner said its grievance was redressed and did not press the petition (para 5).
The Bombay High Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking directions to the State machinery over an expected agitation in Mumbai by Respondent No. 4, but found that no situation had yet emerged calling for directions, as the petitioners' case rested on "past experience" (paras 3, 6-7). It expected any protest to comply with Rule 25 of the 2025 Rules and the State to handle any medical emergency of Respondent No. 4, who is on hunger strike (paras 6, 8).
In a writ petition by Kavin Kartik, a minor suing through the mother, and others against the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the Bombay High Court directed that the Union of India be impleaded as a respondent, issued notice to it returnable on 14 October 2026 and listed the matter that day for final disposal (paras 1, 3, 5). The petition is pending.
The Bombay High Court at Kolhapur restored a hotel's food licence, holding that a suspension imposed forthwith to protect public health cannot continue once a re-inspection scores the establishment 97%, ‘exemplar’ on the authorities' own grading (paras 17, 30). The appellate authority had not considered the re-inspection report, and other breaches attract penalties under Sections 55 and 63, not continued suspension (paras 21, 29).
The Bombay High Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's petition against a Mumbai magistrate's 2019 order issuing process for defamation on a complaint by a BJP member over his 2018 remarks about the Prime Minister, including the "Commander-in-Thief" post (paras 1-9, 22). Following John Thomas, it held that the complainant need not be the person actually defamed, and that whether the imputation extended to party members must await trial (paras 19-20).
Hearing Suryakant Gulabrao Yewale's application for anticipatory bail, the Bombay High Court directed the Director General of Police and the Investigating Officer to file replies, after recording submissions on whether the applicant is involved in the crime and on which directors of the company that bought the land have been made accused (paras 2-5). The State said affidavits would be filed within two weeks; ad-interim protection continues till 28.09.2026 (paras 6-8).
At its Kolhapur bench, the Bombay High Court found prima facie discriminatory the omission of Scheduled Tribes from a Government Circular of 4 September 2026 that gave other reserved categories three more months to submit caste validity certificates. In an interim order on a Scheduled Tribe student's petition, it held her entitled to the extension, directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide her tribe claim within six weeks and barred cancellation of her admission till the next date, 28 September 2026 (paras 5-8).
The Bombay High Court allowed Coda Payments India's appeal under Section 42 of the PMLA and quashed the Appellate Tribunal's order upholding the freezing of its bank and payment-gateway accounts (paras 1, 54). The Adjudicating Authority never recorded the Section 8(2) finding that the property was involved in money laundering, and the Tribunal could not supply it (paras 25-30). Freezing about Rs. 100 crore when one FIR of Rs. 85,650 remained was "ex-facie excessive and disproportionate" (para 40).
The Bombay High Court issued notice to Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Legal Advisor of Maharashtra's Law and Judiciary Department, to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The Bench took the view that his aggressive outburst in open court, blaming the High Court administration when asked about his affidavit on 179 Fast Track Court posts, constituted contempt ex facie (paras 1-4, 12). The notice is returnable on 11 September 2026 (para 14).
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur upheld the rejection of a father's application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 that sought his son's eviction from a family property, holding that only a senior citizen unable to maintain himself may apply under Section 5, and a petitioner drawing a regular pension and his late wife's family pension is not one (paras 7, 11, 13-14). Eviction is only an incident of the right to maintenance (para 17).
The Bombay High Court set aside a Pune Family Court order directing that interim custody of a couple's son be restored to his father, holding that the Family Court made no independent assessment of the child's welfare and relied on extraneous, self-contradictory and stereotypical reasoning, including remarks on the duties of a ‘pious’ wife (paras 1, 8.3.5-8.3.7, 9). The mother, with whom the boy has lived since March 2025, may retain custody; the father gets periodic access (paras 10-11).
The Bombay High Court dismissed petitions by three MMS students of the Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies whose admissions under the CIWGC supernumerary quota were cancelled in their final semester. It held that the cumulative circumstances showed, on a preponderance of probabilities, that they knowingly relied on materially inflated academic credentials, and that reaching the final semester or a placement cannot turn such an admission into a lawful one (paras 64, 75, 83).