BHCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

Bombay High Court Judgments in February 2026: Case Law Digest

Read 81 LawLens analyses of Bombay High Court judgments published in February 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO THE BOMBAY LAW DESK

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

February 2026 Judgments

81 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
### Meritorious Candidate Cannot Be Disqualified for Clerical/Typographical Errors in EWS Certificate Committed by Issuing Authority Summary of the Judgment: The High Court of Bombay set aside an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) which had upheld the MPSC’s decision to exclude a candidate from the merit list due to a date error in her Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificate. The petitioner, a highly meritorious candidate (scoring 545.75 marks against a category cutoff of 532.25), submitted an EWS certificate dated May 9, 2024. Although it correctly reflected her income for the 2023-2024 financial year, the Tahsildar erroneously labeled it as "valid for 2024-2025." The MPSC disqualified her, arguing she lacked a valid certificate for the recruitment year (2023-2024). Key Legal Principles & Observations: 1. Substance Over Form: The Court held that the MPSC focused excessively on the "form" rather than the "substance" of the certificate. Since the certificate was in the prescribed format and the issuing authority (Tahsildar) later clarified that the date was a typographical error, the eligibility criteria were deemed satisfied. 2. State Error Doctrine: A candidate cannot be made to suffer for a "patent error" or "inadvertent mistake" committed by a government official (the Tahsildar) when the underlying facts (income level) qualify the candidate for the benefit. 3. Distinguishing Strict Compliance: While acknowledging Supreme Court precedents (e.g., *Divya v. UPSC*) regarding strict deadlines and formats, the Court distinguished them by noting that the petitioner *did* possess the status and the document within the timeline; the issue was merely a clerical error by the State rather than a failure of the candidate to acquire eligibility. 4. Absence of Cut-off for Submission: The Court noted that the advertisement did not prescribe a rigid cut-off date for "possession" of the certificate, stating it should be produced during document verification. Conclusion: The Court directed the MPSC to include the petitioner in the select list at the appropriate rank, emphasizing that technicalities should not defeat the rights of a meritorious candidate when eligibility is factually established.. Ms. Heena Qasim Phoplunkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 1746 of 2026]. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Administrative and Public LawEmployment and Labour Law

### Meritorious Candidate Cannot Be Disqualified for Clerical/Typographical Errors in EWS Certificate Committed by Issuing Authority Summary of the Judgment: The High Court of Bombay set aside an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) which had upheld the MPSC’s decision to exclude a candidate from the merit list due to a date error in her Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificate. The petitioner, a highly meritorious candidate (scoring 545.75 marks against a category cutoff of 532.25), submitted an EWS certificate dated May 9, 2024. Although it correctly reflected her income for the 2023-2024 financial year, the Tahsildar erroneously labeled it as "valid for 2024-2025." The MPSC disqualified her, arguing she lacked a valid certificate for the recruitment year (2023-2024). Key Legal Principles & Observations: 1. Substance Over Form: The Court held that the MPSC focused excessively on the "form" rather than the "substance" of the certificate. Since the certificate was in the prescribed format and the issuing authority (Tahsildar) later clarified that the date was a typographical error, the eligibility criteria were deemed satisfied. 2. State Error Doctrine: A candidate cannot be made to suffer for a "patent error" or "inadvertent mistake" committed by a government official (the Tahsildar) when the underlying facts (income level) qualify the candidate for the benefit. 3. Distinguishing Strict Compliance: While acknowledging Supreme Court precedents (e.g., *Divya v. UPSC*) regarding strict deadlines and formats, the Court distinguished them by noting that the petitioner *did* possess the status and the document within the timeline; the issue was merely a clerical error by the State rather than a failure of the candidate to acquire eligibility. 4. Absence of Cut-off for Submission: The Court noted that the advertisement did not prescribe a rigid cut-off date for "possession" of the certificate, stating it should be produced during document verification. Conclusion: The Court directed the MPSC to include the petitioner in the select list at the appropriate rank, emphasizing that technicalities should not defeat the rights of a meritorious candidate when eligibility is factually established.

The Petitioner, an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidate, applied for the Maharashtra Civil Services under an EWS (Female) category advertisement dated December 29, 2023.

2 MIN READ

### Civil Court Jurisdiction to Grant Partition Not Ousted by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act Overview: The Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a secured creditor (Tourism Finance Corporation of India) challenging a District Court's temporary injunction. The injunction restrained the creditor from creating third-party interests in an ancestral property to the extent of a daughter's (coparcener's) share, despite ongoing recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. Key Legal Issue: Whether the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act applies to a partition suit filed by a person (non-borrower/non-guarantor) asserting coparcenary rights in the secured asset. Court’s Reasoning and Ruling: 1. Jurisdictional Bar: Following the Supreme Court’s clarification in *Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025)*, the Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacks the power to partition property. Therefore, Section 34 does not oust the Civil Court’s jurisdiction where a third party (other than the borrower/guarantor) seeks to enforce civil rights like partition and separate possession. 2. Ancestral Character: Based on revenue records (Mutation Entry No. 134), the Court prima facie found the suit properties were ancestral. As a coparcener, the Plaintiff’s right exists by birth, and subsequent mortgages by her father (Defendant No. 1) could not unilaterally extinguish her undivided interest. 3. Breach of Injunction: The Court noted that the Petitioner sold the property despite the District Court’s restraint. Relying on *Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra*, the Court reiterated that any transfer made in willful disobedience of an injunction order is illegal, invalid, and confers no right on the transferee. 4. Due Process: The "due process of law" required to sell the property must be qua the Plaintiff’s share. Since the Plaintiff was not a party to the loan or the security creation, enforcing the security interest without adjudicating her share via the partition suit was impermissible. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the injunction, confirming that coparcenary rights in ancestral property must be protected by civil courts even when such properties are subject to SARFAESI recovery proceedings.. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited v. Aishwarya Chetan Khedkar @ Aishwarya Sanjay Mali & Ors. [2026:BHC-AS:9478]. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Property and Real Estate LawBanking and Finance Law

### Civil Court Jurisdiction to Grant Partition Not Ousted by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act Overview: The Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a secured creditor (Tourism Finance Corporation of India) challenging a District Court's temporary injunction. The injunction restrained the creditor from creating third-party interests in an ancestral property to the extent of a daughter's (coparcener's) share, despite ongoing recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. Key Legal Issue: Whether the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act applies to a partition suit filed by a person (non-borrower/non-guarantor) asserting coparcenary rights in the secured asset. Court’s Reasoning and Ruling: 1. Jurisdictional Bar: Following the Supreme Court’s clarification in *Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025)*, the Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacks the power to partition property. Therefore, Section 34 does not oust the Civil Court’s jurisdiction where a third party (other than the borrower/guarantor) seeks to enforce civil rights like partition and separate possession. 2. Ancestral Character: Based on revenue records (Mutation Entry No. 134), the Court prima facie found the suit properties were ancestral. As a coparcener, the Plaintiff’s right exists by birth, and subsequent mortgages by her father (Defendant No. 1) could not unilaterally extinguish her undivided interest. 3. Breach of Injunction: The Court noted that the Petitioner sold the property despite the District Court’s restraint. Relying on *Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra*, the Court reiterated that any transfer made in willful disobedience of an injunction order is illegal, invalid, and confers no right on the transferee. 4. Due Process: The "due process of law" required to sell the property must be qua the Plaintiff’s share. Since the Plaintiff was not a party to the loan or the security creation, enforcing the security interest without adjudicating her share via the partition suit was impermissible. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the injunction, confirming that coparcenary rights in ancestral property must be protected by civil courts even when such properties are subject to SARFAESI recovery proceedings.

The Petitioner, a secured creditor, sanctioned financial facilities to a firm where Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (parents of the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1) were partners and guarantors.

3 MIN READ