Mumbai Travel Retail Limited and Flemingo Dutyfree Shop Private Limited v Union of India and Others
W.P. No. 3079 of 2026 and connected matters | decided 22 September 2026
Facts: Mumbai airport duty-free retailers sold imported tobacco-free nicotine pouches. They argued that sales to departing passengers beyond the customs barrier were outside domestic regulation. The Drugs Controller treated the pouches as drugs requiring licences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, so the retailers challenged that decision.
Issue: Does duty-free status exempt imported goods from domestic laws, and were these nicotine pouches “drugs” under the 1940 Act?
Decision: The Court held that duty-free status does not put imported goods beyond domestic regulation. Goods brought into India remain imports, and tax exemptions do not displace public-health laws. It did not decide whether these pouches were “drugs”; composition, intended use and any exemption required closer examination. The retailers could submit product details for a reasoned decision. The judgment draws a clear line between customs-duty treatment and product regulation.
Also Read – Most Important Delhi High Court Judgments of September 2026
M/S Pharmed Limited and Another v Union of India and Others
W.P. No. 595 of 2017 | 2026:BHC-OS:20781-DB | decided 22 September 2026
Facts: Pharmed manufactured Cartigen Forte, a medicine for osteoarthritis. Vitamins C and E were removed from its formula in 2010. The NPPA applied multivitamin price notifications and sought to recover alleged overcharges. Pharmed challenged this under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995.
Issue: Could Cartigen Forte be covered by the multivitamin price notification simply because the earlier formula included vitamins C and E?
Decision: The Court allowed the petition. It held that the 2007 multivitamin notification could not cover Cartigen Forte merely because an earlier formula contained small amounts of vitamins C and E. It also struck down the 30 January 2009 blanket notification as beyond the powers under the DPCO 1995. The resulting recovery demands could not stand. A scheduled ingredient alone does not determine a formulation’s ceiling price; the authority must follow the process set by law.
Also Read – Most Important Karnataka High Court Judgments of September 2026
Sunfield Global Pte Limited v Liberty Investments Private Limited
Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 1634 of 2026 | 2026:BHC-OS:20813-DB | decided 22 September 2026
Facts: Sunfield supplied oil to Liberty under six contracts and said Liberty admitted a USD 6,692,500 debt but did not pay. Sunfield sought security over Indian assets under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration was seated in England; its tribunal was formed while the petition was pending. A Single Judge dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
Issue: Could the Court order interim security when the foreign tribunal could not effectively protect the admitted claim against assets in India?
Decision: The Division Bench allowed the appeal. Since Sunfield filed before the tribunal was formed, the Court could still consider protection. Here, the foreign tribunal could not effectively secure Indian assets. Liberty had to provide a bank guarantee for USD 6,692,500, interest and costs, or could not deal with the identified Mumbai property. This case-specific relief is not automatic in foreign arbitrations.
Ingram Micro India Private Limited v Integrated Batteries India Private Limited
Section 11 application, decided 22 September 2026
Facts: The parties’ agreement contained an arbitration clause. After a Delhi commercial suit was referred to arbitration, the respondent approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) under the MSMED Act. Conciliation failed, and the Council began arbitration under Section 18(3). Ingram Micro then asked the Bombay High Court to appoint a separate arbitrator under the contract.
Issue: Could the Court appoint a second arbitrator under the contract once the MSEFC had started arbitration over the same dispute?
Decision: The Court dismissed the application. Following Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v Mahakali Foods (2023), it held that the MSMED Act’s process takes priority over a conflicting arbitration clause. Once the MSEFC began arbitration, no second tribunal could be appointed for the same dispute. The respondent’s earlier willingness to arbitrate did not remove its right to approach the MSEFC. Ingram Micro’s participation under protest did not waive its jurisdictional objection, which it could raise before the appropriate forum.
Shri Chandrasekhar Kashinath Pawar and Others v Malegaon Municipal Council and Others
W.P. No. 1222 of 2005 | decided 11 September 2026
Facts: The petitioners owned land in Malegaon reserved for a school and playground. They served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, but the authority did not acquire the land. It said a proposal had gone before its general body, where no decision was made within the statutory period.
Issue: Was placing an acquisition proposal before the municipal general body enough to stop the reservation from lapsing?
Decision: The Court said it was not enough. Under Section 127, reservation lapses if land is not acquired and required steps are not taken within 24 months of notice. Relying on Girnar Traders v State of Maharashtra, the Bench held that merely moving a proposal did not qualify. It declared the reservation lapsed, made the land available for development as adjoining land, and directed Gazette publication within six weeks.
Aman @ Aman Ibrahim Khan v Commissioner of Police, Pune and Others
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2026 | decided 18 September 2026
Facts: Aman Khan challenged his detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The order relied on his criminal history, recent cases and confidential witness statements. It also said he was likely to obtain bail, though the grounds mentioned a preventive bond still in force. Khan argued the conclusion was unsupported and inconsistent.
Issue: Could the detention order stand when its prediction of release on bail was not properly supported by the record?
Decision: The Division Bench quashed the order, finding contradictions, gaps and inadequate consideration of the preventive bond. The record did not support the prediction that Khan would obtain bail. A detention authority must assess relevant material and explain why release is likely and how it would threaten public order; a bare prediction is insufficient. The ruling turned on this record and does not prevent detention when statutory requirements are met.
Vinayak Bhaurao Raut v Election Commission of India and Others (application by Narayan Tatu Rane)
Application in Election Petition No. 7 of 2024 | decided 29 September 2026
Facts: Vinayak Raut challenged Narayan Rane’s 2024 Lok Sabha election from Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg, alleging late campaigning and bribery or improper voter influence. He relied partly on a video. Rane sought rejection of the petition, arguing it did not identify those involved or say when and where the alleged acts occurred.
Issue: Did Raut’s petition give the material facts and particulars required by Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Decision: The Court rejected the petition at the threshold. Allegations of corrupt practices must include material facts and particulars; documents cannot repair gaps in pleadings. Raut’s petition did not identify those involved or explain when, where and how the alleged acts occurred. The video could not replace those details. Some affidavit, verification and translation defects were curable, but the missing facts were fatal under Section 83. The Court did not decide whether the allegations were true.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications