The Bombay High Court held that a dispute falling within the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is non-arbitrable, and that an arbitration clause in a builder-buyer arrangement cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar applied the Booz Allen and Vidya Drolia non-arbitrability framework to a homebuyer's refund claim.
The Bombay High Court at Goa held that s.14 of the POSH Act penalises a woman (or a person filing on her behalf) for a false and malicious complaint, but provides no punishment for a third party who instigates one. It also held that an Internal Committee cannot record a named instigator as an 'unknown' source where his identity is disclosed in the retraction letter that closed the complaint.
On 8 June 2026 the Bombay High Court restrained Numen Pharma from using the mark 'ACIPROX', holding it phonetically similar to Alkem's registered 'ALCIPRO'. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh applied the heightened pharmaceutical confusion standard — the bare possibility of confusion is enough to injunct — and refused to dissect the rival marks syllable by syllable.
Justice G.S. Patel laid down a detailed code to shield the identities of parties and witnesses in sexual-harassment litigation — anonymised cause-titles, orders delivered in chambers or in-camera, and a bar on media or social-media disclosure without leave. The judgment built the working confidentiality framework for POSH cases under s.16 of the 2013 Act.
The Bombay High Court held that a shared autorickshaw used to commute to office is not a 'workplace' under s.2(o)(v) of the POSH Act unless the transport is employer-provided. The Internal Committee that found the SBI employee guilty therefore acted without jurisdiction, and its order was set aside.
In June 2026 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed two 2012 Union Cabinet decisions and the consequent demand notices that sought a retrospective one-time spectrum charge on Airtel and Vodafone Idea. A digest of the facts, the holding that the Centre cannot unilaterally rewrite existing licence terms, and what it means for the sector.
In July 2025 a Bombay High Court Division Bench dismissed a public interest litigation alleging that Prada's Milan runway sandals copied the Kolhapuri Chappal geographical indication. The Court held that the right to sue for GI infringement belongs to registered proprietors and authorised users, not to advocates filing a PIL under Article 226. A digest of the facts, the locus and forum holding, and what it settles about GI enforcement.
On 29 April 2026, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale held that denial of a Police Clearance Certificate for a Public Service Vehicle badge — to a petitioner acquitted in the 26/11 case but separately convicted in the 2008 Rampur CRPF camp attack — is a reasonable restriction on the right to livelihood under Article 21.
On 30 April 2026, a Bombay High Court Division Bench quashed a ₹1,524 crore IGST demand on Tata Sons' satisfaction of the NTT Docomo arbitral-award settlement, holding that enforcement consent terms are not a taxable supply under section 7 CGST and narrowing Entry 5(e) of Schedule II.
On 10 March 2026, a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court closed a gap that had quietly opened up in Indian arbitration practice: whether a foreign award-creditor who has filed an enforcement petition under Part II loses access to interim relief under Section 9. The judgment is short, the holding is precise, and the practitioner's takeaway is operational.