Repair Permissions From BMC Do Not Prove Legality Of Structure: Bombay High Court Refuses Relief Against Demolition

 In our view, the repair permissions granted by the BMC, would not by itself, conclusively prove that a structure existed prior to the datum line. Any permission/s granted by the BMC either for alteration or modification a structure, though it may carry a presumption regarding the existence of such structure, cannot conclusively establish that the structure existed prior to the datum line unless the same is independently substantiated by supporting documents. In our view, such a permission granted would only show the abysmal state of BMC affairs. The BMC could not have granted any such permission without ascertaining the legality of the said structure. {Para 16}

17) In our considered view, the concerned Officers who gave such permissions are responsible and the cause of these rampant illegalities in the State. It is imperative for the Officers of the BMC to check as to whether the structure is authorized before granting any such repair permission. The failure per se cannot inure to the benefit of the wrongdoer. A permission to repair a structure, given subsequent to the datum line, cannot prove either its existence prior to datum line or it being authorised. In our view, granting reliefs to the Petitioners would only encourage the public perception that one can construct illegally and regularise the same by obtaining such permissions subsequently. It would render the entire object of the legislature to have a planned development and having the Municipal Act nugatory and otiose resulting in illegalities being confirmed and ratified by subsequent repair permissions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3448 OF 2023

 Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation,  V/s. The Municipal Corporation of  Greater Mumbai, 

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 29th April, 2026.

Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-

Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:11078-DB

Print Page

Bombay HC: Mediation Act 2023 Does Not Confer Power On Courts To Mandate Mediation Without Mutual Consent Of Parties

Conclusion :-

15. The Mediation Act, 2023 does not provide for any mandatory

mediation nor does it confer any power on the court to order

mediation without consent of all parties. The procedure prescribed

under the Act is for a mediation agreement to be executed in writing to submit to mediation. Thus, the mediation contemplated by the Mediation Act is not compulsory but a consensual mediation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5241 OF 2025

IN

SUIT NO. 250 OF 2023

Babasaheb Neelkanth Kalyani  Vs  Sugandha Hiremath 

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 04 May, 2026

Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:11441

Print Page

Transfer Of Adoption Powers To District Magistrates Valid: Bombay High Court Upholds 2021 Juvenile Justice Act Amendment

 We have noted that though the Bombay High Court had granted stay to the transfer of pending adoption matters to the District Magistrate, by directing that ongoing cases shall continue in the Court, in other States the Amendment of 2021 has come into force and has yielded success. In light of the aforesaid discussion, since we do not find any merit and substance in the challenge raised by the Petitioners, both the Petitions stand dismissed. Pending Interim Applications also stand disposed of. At the same time, we vacate the interim order dated 10/01/2023 and permit the matters to be dealt with by the

District Magistrate. We must also clarify that in the interregnum the orders which are passed by the Court in adoption matters shall be treated as legally and validly passed. {Para 28}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2023

Nisha Pradeep Pandya alias Nisha Amit Gor & Anr.  V/S  Union of India & Ors.

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ

DATE : 4th MAY 2026

JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :

Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:11417-DB

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, complainant is not entitled to file similar application U/S 156(3) of CRPC for second time?

 The short issue for consideration in this appeal

is as to whether the learned Magistrate has the

jurisdiction to invoke Section 156(3) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for

the second time, in spite of the earlier order dated

10.08.2022 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed

the initial application filed by the respondentcomplainant

under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as

well as the subsequent closure report filed by the

police, pursuant to the direction given by the High

Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

Though arguments have been made by the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the State that there is

no bar under law in doing so, the fact remains that

the second round of resorting to Section 156(3) of

the Cr.P.C. is nothing but an attempt to review the

earlier order passed by the High Court. It is also

pertinent to state that the liberty given by the

High Court to the respondent-complainant was only

for the purpose of invoking Section 200 of the

Cr.P.C. Maybe it is an oversight which made the

respondent–complainant to invoke Section 156 (3) of

the Cr.P.C., once again, instead of filing a private

complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Suffice

it to state that the parameters for the invocation

of both the aforesaid sections are quite different.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2193 /2026

MOHAN KARTHIK & ORS. Vs  STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 

Dated: APRIL 27, 2026.

Print Page