The Bombay High Court enhanced compensation awarded in a motor accident case while emphasising the need for better road discipline among citizens.

The Court upheld the finding of contributory negligence between the pedestrian and the bus driver but increased the compensation by reassessing the deceased’s income and granting additional amounts under various heads.

It observed that both pedestrians and motorists frequently violate traffic rules, contributing to accidents.

Stressing that “rights and duties go hand in hand,” the Court urged citizens to follow traffic signals and basic road safety norms. It highlighted the need for inculcating civic sense to prevent avoidable road fatalities.

[Vasanti Satish Joshi v. Thane Municipal Transport Corporation]

The Bombay High Court has directed all judicial officers in Maharashtra and Goa to upload orders and judgments on the CIS server on the same day they are pronounced.

If there is any delay, officers must provide reasons for not uploading them on time. The Court warned that failure to comply would amount to misconduct affecting the integrity of a judicial officer.

Judicial officers have also been asked to submit monthly certificates confirming timely uploads.

The directions were issued following concerns over delays, irregular court practices, and improper case management observed during inspections of subordinate courts.

The Bombay High Court has ordered the demolition of an illegally installed Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj statue on Mormugao Port land, criticizing the Goa government for "gross inaction."

Despite the Port Authority's prior refusal to grant an NOC, the statue was unveiled with political backing.

The Court rejected the State's plea that the Port should use its own security, ruling that the Police and Magistrates are duty-bound to prevent criminal trespass and maintain law and order. 

Describing the State’s bystander role as "tacit collusion," the Bench directed authorities to provide armed protection for the demolition and restoration of the site.

[Mormugao Port Authority v. State of Goa & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has restrained filmmaker Santosh Kumar from making further allegations that director Aditya Dhar plagiarized the script for Dhurandhar.

The Court issued the interim stay after Dhar filed a defamation suit, arguing that Kumar's public claims were baseless and prejudicial.

The Court noted that while Kumar is free to pursue legal remedies for copyright infringement, he cannot continue making defamatory remarks in the interim. This order emphasizes that public accusations of intellectual property theft, if unsubstantiated, can attract injunctions to protect a creator's reputation.

The restraint remains in effect until the next hearing scheduled for April 16, 2026.

[Aditya Dhar v. Santosh Kumar RS & Ors.]

A plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking directions to repatriate the mortal remains of Indian seafarer Dixit Solanki, who died in a suspected missile/drone attack off the Oman coast during the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict.

The petition, filed by his family, alleges administrative inaction by authorities, including the Union government, the Directorate General of Shipping, and officials of the Indian Embassy.

It argues that timely repatriation is a legal obligation and forms part of the right to dignity under Article 21, even after death.

Despite recovery of remains  by Sharjah Police, delays and lack of clarity have prompted the family to seek urgent judicial intervention.

[Amratlal Gokal Solanki & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹7.5 lakh penalty imposed on a farmer for alleged illegal sand excavation, holding that mere presence of a JCB in his field and clay residue in its bucket is insufficient evidence.

The Court found that revenue authorities acted on assumptions without proper inquiry or proof.

It noted inconsistencies in official records and defects in the panchanama, including absence of date and lack of supporting material.

Emphasising principles of natural justice, the Court also observed that the farmer was not given a fair hearing. Calling the action arbitrary and harassing, the Court set aside all penalty orders.

[Gunaji Ramji Surnar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has declined to grant a blanket injunction against Republic TV and Arnab Goswami in a defamation plea filed by industrialist Anil Ambani.

The Court clarified that while the media acts as the "fourth estate" and has a right to report on matters of public interest, including SEBI orders, it must refrain from using disparaging rhetoric or "below-the-belt" insinuations.

The Court warned that if the channel continued using disparaging adjectives or smear-campaign tactics, it would not hesitate to intervene with specific restrictive orders.

The matter was adjourned to allow the news channel to file a detailed response justifying its reportage.

[Anil Ambani v. ARG Outlier & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has rejected actor Anita Advani’s plea seeking legal recognition of her relationship with late actor Rajesh Khanna as a marriage.

The Court dismissed her appeal against a 2017 civil court order, holding that her claim of a relationship “in the nature of marriage” could not be accepted. Advani had argued that she lived with Khanna for years and shared a marital-like relationship. 

However, the Court declined to grant her any legal status, especially since Khanna was never divorced from his wife Dimple Kapadia.

The case is part of a long-standing legal dispute over her claims following Khanna’s death.

[Smt. Anita Advani v. Smt. Dimple Jatin Khanna & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court is hearing petitions filed by two women aged above 50 years who seek to undergo pregnancy through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).

They have challenged the provision in the ART Act, 2021, which limits such procedures to women below 50 years of age. The Court noted that the petitions did not provide sufficient medical or scientific material to show that women at that age can safely carry a pregnancy.

Considering the issue, the Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist in examining the legal and medical aspects.

The matter is currently pending before the Court.

[Swati Sharad Parab & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has ruled that an employee’s acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle them to full pay and back wages for their suspension period.

The Bench held that such entitlement depends on specific service regulations and the discretion of the competent authority, based on whether the suspension was "wholly unjustified."

The Court observed that in bribery cases involving arrest, the employer cannot be "saddled with the financial burden" of full wages for a situation the employee embroiled themselves in.

Reinstatement is guaranteed upon acquittal, but payment of full salary remains a discretionary, case-specific decision.

[Dr. Lalchand N. Jumani v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai]

Industrialist Anil Ambani has moved the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against Republic TV and its Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami for allegedly damaging his reputation.

The suit claims the defendants maliciously linked Ambani to regulatory proceedings involving Reliance Group entities despite him holding no managerial positions in those companies during the relevant periods.

Ambani alleges the channel used sensationalised terms like "financial scam mastermind" and "fraud," causing irreparable injury to his professional standing.

Ambani seeks to remedy the losses caused by these "false and reckless" imputations. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 1.

[Anil Ambani v. ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a CBI investigation into allegations that Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) unlawfully extracted natural gas from ONGC’s Krishna-Godavari Basin fields.

The Bench rejected the plea filed by activist Jitendra Maru, who alleged a "massive organized fraud" involving the migration of gas between adjoining blocks.

The petitioner cited reports that estimated the value of the extracted gas at over $1.55 billion.

While the Delhi High Court had previously set aside an arbitral award favoring RIL in 2025, the Bombay High Court declined to order a criminal probe.

[Jitendra Maru v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court set aside a death sentence awarded by a Nashik Sessions Court in a 2017 rape and murder case of a minor, citing violation of the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court found that the accused was not properly represented by a lawyer at crucial stages, and the trial was conducted in undue haste.

It held that legal aid and effective representation are essential under Article 21.

Emphasising that even in grave offences fairness cannot be compromised, the Court quashed the conviction and ordered a fresh trial to be completed within a stipulated time.

[The State of Maharashtra v. Vilas Annasaheb Mahale]