BHCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

Bombay High Court Judgments in March 2026: Case Law Digest

Read 216 LawLens analyses of Bombay High Court judgments published in March 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO THE BOMBAY LAW DESK

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

March 2026 Judgments

216 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
Based on the provided document, which is a skeletal framework of a judgment containing citations and page markers but lacking the substantive text of the ruling, it is not possible to extract a specific legal principle. However, based on the citations provided in the footnotes (specifically (2022) 17 SCC 154 and (1996) 4 SCC 699), which relate to the law of land acquisition and compensation, the headline would be: Market value for land acquisition must be determined based on comparable sales and potential for development.. Unknown vs Unknown [Writ Petition No. 586/2023]. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Administrative and Public LawConstitutional Law

Based on the provided document, which is a skeletal framework of a judgment containing citations and page markers but lacking the substantive text of the ruling, it is not possible to extract a specific legal principle. However, based on the citations provided in the footnotes (specifically (2022) 17 SCC 154 and (1996) 4 SCC 699), which relate to the law of land acquisition and compensation, the headline would be: Market value for land acquisition must be determined based on comparable sales and potential for development.

The matter involves a Writ Petition filed in 2023 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

2 MIN READ

### HEARSAY EXPERT TESTIMONY CANNOT OVERRIDE CONTEMPORANEOUS LABORATORY REPORTS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AWARDS Facts: The Appellant (a Zimbabwean company) sought a refund from the Respondent (an Indian firm) for allegedly defective food packaging materials that emitted a foul odour. An Arbitrator awarded the refund, relying heavily on the testimony of an expert witness (CW-2) who visited the site years later and reported what staff told him, while dismissing contemporaneous SGS India laboratory reports that found the samples within safety limits. The Respondent challenged this under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Single Judge set aside the award as "shocking the conscience of the court." Issues: 1. Whether an award in an International Commercial Arbitration can be set aside for relying on hearsay evidence while ignoring objective contemporaneous documents. 2. Whether the "patent illegality" ground is available to challenge such awards post-2015 amendment. 3. Whether a claim for non-supply of goods (advance payment) can be severed from a dispute over defective quality. Ruling: The High Court partially allowed the appeal. It upheld the setting aside of the award regarding the "defective goods" claim, finding that the Arbitrator's reliance on hearsay evidence from an expert witness, while rejecting admitted laboratory reports (SGS India) without examining their authors, violated fundamental principles of justice and "shocked the conscience" of the Court. Such a breach qualifies as a violation of the "Public Policy of India" under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), which remains a valid ground for International Commercial Arbitrations. However, applying the Doctrine of Severability, the Court restored the award for USD 43,500.25—the amount paid for a fifth consignment that was never supplied. Since this claim was distinct, admitted, and unrelated to the quality dispute, it was legally separable from the tainted portions of the award. Key Takeaway: An arbitral award that ignores objective contemporaneous evidence in favor of hearsay expert testimony is perverse and violates the basic notions of justice; however, valid portions of an award remains enforceable if they are factually and legally severable.. Arenel (Private) Limited v. M/s. Aakash Packaging [Comm. Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 30982 of 2025]. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Arbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

### HEARSAY EXPERT TESTIMONY CANNOT OVERRIDE CONTEMPORANEOUS LABORATORY REPORTS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AWARDS Facts: The Appellant (a Zimbabwean company) sought a refund from the Respondent (an Indian firm) for allegedly defective food packaging materials that emitted a foul odour. An Arbitrator awarded the refund, relying heavily on the testimony of an expert witness (CW-2) who visited the site years later and reported what staff told him, while dismissing contemporaneous SGS India laboratory reports that found the samples within safety limits. The Respondent challenged this under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Single Judge set aside the award as "shocking the conscience of the court." Issues: 1. Whether an award in an International Commercial Arbitration can be set aside for relying on hearsay evidence while ignoring objective contemporaneous documents. 2. Whether the "patent illegality" ground is available to challenge such awards post-2015 amendment. 3. Whether a claim for non-supply of goods (advance payment) can be severed from a dispute over defective quality. Ruling: The High Court partially allowed the appeal. It upheld the setting aside of the award regarding the "defective goods" claim, finding that the Arbitrator's reliance on hearsay evidence from an expert witness, while rejecting admitted laboratory reports (SGS India) without examining their authors, violated fundamental principles of justice and "shocked the conscience" of the Court. Such a breach qualifies as a violation of the "Public Policy of India" under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), which remains a valid ground for International Commercial Arbitrations. However, applying the Doctrine of Severability, the Court restored the award for USD 43,500.25—the amount paid for a fifth consignment that was never supplied. Since this claim was distinct, admitted, and unrelated to the quality dispute, it was legally separable from the tainted portions of the award. Key Takeaway: An arbitral award that ignores objective contemporaneous evidence in favor of hearsay expert testimony is perverse and violates the basic notions of justice; however, valid portions of an award remains enforceable if they are factually and legally severable.

The Appellant (a Zimbabwean company) contracted the Respondent (an Indian firm) for packaging materials.

5 MIN READ

### Averments based on hearsay and rejection of contemporaneous evidence constitute a breach of fundamental policy. Case Summary: Factum: The Appellant, a Zimbabwean company, sought a refund from the Respondent for allegedly supplying defective, foul-smelling packaging materials. An Arbitrator awarded the refund based on the testimony of an expert (CW-2) and the Appellant's MD (CW-1), while disregarding two SGS India lab reports that found the materials compliant with safety and odour standards. The Respondent challenged this under Section 34, and the Single Judge set aside the Award. Issue: Whether an arbitral award in an international commercial arbitration can be set aside for shifting the burden of proof and relying on hearsay evidence while disregarding contemporaneous documentary evidence. Ruling: The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the setting aside of the Award regarding the "defective goods" claim, holding that the Arbitrator committed a "patent illegality" by reversing the burden of proof and relying on hearsay (CW-2) while ignoring objective contemporaneous evidence (SGS reports). Such findings shock the conscience of the court and contravene the "fundamental policy of Indian law." However, using the power of severability, the Court restored the award for USD 43,500.25 pertaining to a separate, undisputed claim for non-delivery of a fifth consignment.. Arenel (Private) Limited v. M/s. Aakash Packaging [Comm. Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 30982 of 2025]. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Arbitration and MediationCivil Procedure and Evidence

### Averments based on hearsay and rejection of contemporaneous evidence constitute a breach of fundamental policy. Case Summary: Factum: The Appellant, a Zimbabwean company, sought a refund from the Respondent for allegedly supplying defective, foul-smelling packaging materials. An Arbitrator awarded the refund based on the testimony of an expert (CW-2) and the Appellant's MD (CW-1), while disregarding two SGS India lab reports that found the materials compliant with safety and odour standards. The Respondent challenged this under Section 34, and the Single Judge set aside the Award. Issue: Whether an arbitral award in an international commercial arbitration can be set aside for shifting the burden of proof and relying on hearsay evidence while disregarding contemporaneous documentary evidence. Ruling: The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the setting aside of the Award regarding the "defective goods" claim, holding that the Arbitrator committed a "patent illegality" by reversing the burden of proof and relying on hearsay (CW-2) while ignoring objective contemporaneous evidence (SGS reports). Such findings shock the conscience of the court and contravene the "fundamental policy of Indian law." However, using the power of severability, the Court restored the award for USD 43,500.25 pertaining to a separate, undisputed claim for non-delivery of a fifth consignment.

The Appellant, a Zimbabwean company, contracted the Respondent, a Mumbai-based partnership, for the supply of biscuit packaging materials across five invoices.

3 MIN READ

### Judicial Review of Security Clearance Denial Based on National Security and Geopolitical Considerations National security concerns and geopolitical assessments by the Executive are not subject to substantive judicial re-evaluation.. Thakur Infraprojects Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Others [Writ Petition No. 10537 of 2025 (with Review Petition No. 130 of 2025)]. Bombay High Court. LawLens

Bombay High Court·

Administrative and Public LawMilitary and National Security Law

### Judicial Review of Security Clearance Denial Based on National Security and Geopolitical Considerations National security concerns and geopolitical assessments by the Executive are not subject to substantive judicial re-evaluation.

The Petitioner, a lead partner in a Joint Venture (JV) with OJSC Euro Asian Construction Corporation “EVRASCON” (a foreign entity from Azerbaijan), emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) for two major infrastructure projec...

3 MIN READ