Search cases

In re: National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) payment default investigation

A Mumbai PMLA court has authorized the Enforcement Directorate to monetize assets worth 3,464 crore rupees to facilitate a 1,950 crore rupee settlement for investors affected by the National Spot Exchange Limited payment default. On 14 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by MMTC regarding this scheme, enabling its implementation. Subsequently, on 20 October 2026, a special PMLA court rejected an Enforcement Directorate plea to confiscate additional assets linked to the investigation.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs Reliance Industries Limited

The Supreme Court has directed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to deposit Rs 646 crore with its registry by November 6. The MMRDA is challenging a Bombay High Court decision that quashed its demand against Reliance Industries regarding a construction delay at the Bandra-Kurla Complex.

State vs Abu Salem

The case concerns the extradition of Abu Salem from Portugal under an Indian government assurance that his sentence would not exceed 25 years. Following a plea for early release, the Supreme Court dismissed the application on 15 September 2026, holding that the 25-year term concludes in November 2030 and that standard remissions are inapplicable.

State vs Twenty Persons — Murder case acquittal upheld

In the case of Nirmala Bai Devidas Chavhan versus State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of twenty individuals in a murder case on 4 August 2026. The Court determined that the prosecution's case was fatally undermined by unsealed forensic recoveries and identical, stereotyped eyewitness testimonies that suggested the witnesses were tutored.

Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and others — Maharashtra Political Crisis

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment on 11 May 2023 concerning the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis and the split within the Shiv Sena party. While the Court initially refused to interfere with the Shinde government's formation, it subsequently clarified on 5 August 2026 that a legislative majority does not grant lawmakers the authority to defy their political party's directives.

In re: Fraud Case Quashing

In the matter of Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court ruled on 24 July 2026 that the transfer of defrauded funds to an accused's account does not automatically imply that multiple FIRs constitute a single transaction. This follows a judgment on 8 December 2025, where the Court set aside a High Court order that had quashed a separate fraud case based on a private compromise, emphasizing that economic offences affect society at large.

Maharashtra government vs Animal Welfare Board of India — Bullock cart racing

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of state amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act on 18 May 2023, permitting bullock cart races in Maharashtra. Following this constitutional bench judgment, the Government of Maharashtra issued formal standard operating procedures to regulate the organization of these races on 8 May 2026.

CBI vs Chhota Rajan — Jaya Shetty murder case

The CBI's prosecution of gangster Chhota Rajan for the 2001 murder of Mumbai hotelier Jaya Shetty. A special court in Mumbai sentenced him to life imprisonment on 30 May 2024; in September 2025 the Supreme Court cancelled the bail the Bombay High Court had granted him while his appeal is pending.

State vs Arun Gawli — Shiv Sena corporator Jamsandekar murder case

Arun Gawli was convicted by a special MCOCA court on 24 August 2012 for the 2007 murder of Shiv Sena corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar, and the Bombay High Court upheld this conviction on 10 December 2019. The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Arun Gawli on 28 August 2025, overturning a previous denial of his plea as reported on 20 February 2025.

Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra — Interpretation of 'Material Resources of the Community'

The Supreme Court examined whether private property can be considered a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The Court held that not all private property falls under this definition, limiting the state's power to acquire private assets for public distribution.

Navneet Kaur Rana vs State of Maharashtra — Caste certificate case

The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment that had cancelled the caste certificate of Amravati MP Navneet Kaur Rana. The High Court had previously alleged that the 'mochi' caste certificate was obtained using fabricated documents.

State of Maharashtra vs Satish Ragho Mali — POCSO skin-to-skin case

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had interpreted 'sexual assault' under the POCSO Act as requiring direct skin-to-skin contact. The apex court clarified that physical contact made with sexual intent is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Act.

State of Maharashtra vs Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil — Maratha Reservation Case

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provided reservation to the Maratha community. The court declared the law unconstitutional, citing the lack of exceptional circumstances to exceed the 50% reservation ceiling established in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment.

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd vs Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd — Tata-Mistry dispute

The Supreme Court reviewed the legal battle concerning the removal of Cyrus Mistry as chairman of Tata Sons. The court ultimately upheld the decision of Tata Sons to sack Mistry, setting aside an earlier NCLAT order.

State of Maharashtra vs Salman Khan — 2002 Hit-and-Run Case

Bollywood actor Salman Khan was involved in a 2002 hit-and-run incident in Mumbai that resulted in casualties. Although the Bombay High Court acquitted the actor of his conviction on 10 December 2015, the Maharashtra state government challenged this decision in the Supreme Court as reported on 23 January 2016.