ive
India Law Library (Website) is free for India Law Library Offline customers only, Please Don't Pay for this website.

User not Logged..
IP Address :3.236.13.53
Latest Cases

(1) MECON INDRAPRASTHA SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD Vs. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 01-08-2021
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is dispute with regard to two housing group societies seeking registration of the The Mecon Indraprastha Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., and the notices has been issued to the alleged committee of management of both the societies but the respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies & Chits), Meerut while passing the order has not assigned any reason in registering the society of the respondent No. 4.
(2021) 1 AllWC 493

(2) SUYOG GAJANAN AUNDHKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 27-07-2021
On 21st August, 2019, the proceedings under section 56(1) (a) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner responded to the notice dated 2 nd November, 2019 issued to him. Thereafter, on 25th December, 2020, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Walwa Region, Islampur passed the order and externed the petitioner from the Revenue boundaries of Satara, Solapur and Kolhapur districts. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner filed ap
(2021) ALLMRCri 2711

(3) SHUBHAM @ BHAIYYALAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-07-2021
The credibility of the justice dispensation system is the collective responsibility of all the stakeholders; the judges, the bar, the litigants and the common man.Unfortunately, the erosion of the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation system, more often than not, is attributable to stakeholders, who may not be alive to their pious duty and responsibility to ensure that the stream of justice flows unpolluted and unhindered.
(2021) ALLMRCri 2705

(4) BHAGYASHREE PRASHANT WASANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 15-07-2021
The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, as to whether a witness appearing for the prosecution in a sessions trial can produce documents which were not part of the charge-sheet filed before the Court and whether such procedure for production of documents directly by the prosecution witness is contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
(2021) ALLMRCri 3030

(5) NAYNA RAJAN GUHAGARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 13-07-2021
By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 2nd February 2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, below Exhibit 1 in Special Case (ACB) No. 70 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was impermissible for the learned Judge to recall the complainant Sujata Sutar, to prove the memory card seized in the present case, in the peculiar facts of this case. He submits that the impugned order dated 2nd February 2021 was passed taking recourse to Section 31
(2021) ALLMRCri 2716

(6) M. NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 13-07-2021
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of the IV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4589 of 2019 in C.C.No.1598 of 2018, dated 27.01.2020, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/A-15, under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law
(2021) 2 ALTCrl 310

(7) SONALBA NAVALSINH VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 08-07-2021
Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the election results dated 08.03.2021 and 02.03.2021 pertaining to 17-Pimpan Electoral Division of the Sanand Taluka Panchayat so far as it declares deceased Lilaben Vikrambhai Thakore as the elected candidate from 17-Pimpan Electoral Division of the Sanand Taluka Panchayat and further be pleased to direct respondent authoriti
(2021) 3 GujLH 216

(8) VIJAY BAID Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE [CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners, are that on 11.05.2021, the petitioners moved an application for grant of interim bail for 90 days before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur as per direction of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in matter of Suo Motu Petition (C) No. 01/2020 in Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in prisons for releasing them for 90 days looking to the present scenario of pandemic Corona (Covid-19) mainly contending that the petitioners are engaged in trading of gold and silver o

(9) SHARAD ASHOK THANGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 07-07-2021
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar has framed the charge against appellants/ accused under section 498-A, 304-B, 306, 323, 504, 34 of IPC. All the accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The defence of all the appellants/accused is of total denial. According to them, they have not demanded anything and deceased Kalindi was not subjected to cruelty. According to them, fnancial condition of deceased Kalindi was sound and, as such, deceased Kalindi was

(10) COOPERATIVE RABOBANK U.A. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
Petitioner had fled a Return of Income on 31st March, 2003 declaring nil income. The Assessment Order was passed on 28th March, 2005 assessing business profts attributable to permanent establishment (PE) at Rs.31,25,060/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was fled before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] on 28th April, 2005. The CIT(A), by its order dated 15th May, 2006 deleted the addition, holding that Petitioner does not have a PE in India. Thereafter, the assess

(11) TULSHIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 07-07-2021
Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of witnesses. The prosecution has examined only interested witnesses. According to Mr. Choudhari, though PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 have been posed as eye witnesses, they were not present at the time of the alleged incident. They cannot be treated as eye witnesses to the scene of offence. The learned trial Judge has given unnecessary importance to the evidence

(12) KANTABAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 07-07-2021
This is applicant's (repeat) second application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as the present applicant is apprehending his / her arrest in connection with Crime No.391/2019 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, Tahsil Sardarpur District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9

(13) SONU BAIRWA Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 07-07-2021
The petitioner was detained by District Magistrate by stating that the petitioner indulged in black marketing of Remedesivir injections. Two such injections were recovered from him. In a situation when highest numbers of Covid patients were there at Indore, the act of petitioner has caused serious threat to the 'public order'. In view of aforesaid conduct, the detention order was passed and the grounds therefor were supplied to him.

(14) DHIRAJ KUMAR ALIAS GOLDY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 99 dated 22.6.2019 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran. Reply filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Patti, District Tarn Taran, filed in the Registry, is taken on record. Custody certificate by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Amrtisar has been filed through e-mail. Copy of the same is taken on record.

(15) PIPPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is alleged that an altercation took place between the villagers and the police with regard to setting up barricade to prevent the spread of Covid-19 pandemic. He, however, contends that simple injuries were caused on both sides. He also contends that the petitioner had earlier been granted ad interim bail and had joined investigation. The petitioner was declared innocent by the police and consequently the previous application, i.e. CRM-M No.304

(16) AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the girl was recovered by the Police and was produced before the Magistrate and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The prosecutrix stated that she went with the petitioner for roaming of her own. On 10.11.2020, she made a call to her family members from Chhoti Koth and her family brought her home. She further stated that she is not willing to live with her family members, rather wants to live with the petitioner. She was also p

(17) PARDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that allegations levelled in the FIR are totally concocted, false and frivolous and there is no iota of truth therein. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 29.08.2020 and he is no more required by the Investigating Agency for any investigation purpose. He further submits that after completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan) has already been presented in Court on 20.10.2020. He furth

(18) MANJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
Through the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 175 dated 22.09.2020 registered under Sections 406, 498-A, 316, 323 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Division No. 1, District Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is a matrimonial dispute between the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The daughter-in-law of the petitioner has left her mat

(19) AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 234 dated 6.12.2020 under Sections 307, 379-B, 353, 186, 188, 148, 149, 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, registered at Police Station Dharmkot, District Moga. Custody certificate by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent(S), Central Prison, Faridkot has been filed through e-mail. Copy of the same is taken on record.

(20) JATIN ARORA @ JATIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 07-07-2021
The petitioner is seeking regular bail in case FIR No.6 dated 05.01.2021 registered under Sections 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") at Police Station STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali. As per the version of the prosecution, FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered after Ajmer Singh and Jatin Arora @ Jatin (present petitioner) were searched on the basis of secret information and recovery of 260 grams of heroin was effected from the person of Ajmer Singh.

IP Address :3.236.13.53