ive

Latest Cases

(1) SRI ROHIT KIRAN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 03-12-2020
A quarrying lease was granted to the petitioner for a non-specified minor mineral for a period of ten years from 27th October, 2005. There was a premature termination of the lease on 24th March, 2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was allowed on 17th February, 2016. An order was made on 19th July, 2016 giving effect to the order passed in the revision petition and the lease was reinstated up to 26th October, 2015.
(2020) 1 AIRKarR 618

(2) RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA [KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-11-2020
The appellant was convicted by the court below under Sections 55(a) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act. However, the appellant was sentenced by the court below only under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and no separate sentence was awarded under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.The prosecution allegation is that on 17.03.2003 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 750 ml of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.Heard.The learned Counsel for the appellant has arg

(3) KOMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA [KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-11-2020
The appellant was convicted by the court below under Sections 55(a) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act. However, the appellant was sentenced only under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.The prosecution allegation is that on 27.10.2003 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 750ml of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abakari Act.Heard.The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since no for

(4) AJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA [KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-11-2020
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.The prosecution allegation is that on 23.12.1997 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 2 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.Heard.The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was produced or marked in this case, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.It appears that no forwarding note was produced or

(5) M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD Vs. VAKASSERIL MOLLY [KERALA HIGH COURT] 30-11-2020
This appeal is preferred by the decree holder in E.P.No.65/2011 challenging the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge(Ad hoc-III), Kasaragod, allowing the claim petition filed by the first respondent for declaration that schedule property was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of arbitral award passed in A.P.No.24/2000.The first respondent in this appeal, the claim petitioner purchased the schedule property as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 18.11.2004 and claimed to

(6) DEEPAK TEJRANA Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER [DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby for quashing of FIR No.1105/2015 dated 21.08.2015, registered at PS - Dabri and all other proceedings arising therefrom.Notice issued.Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by respondent no.2 in person through VC with his counsel and with the consent of counsel for parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.The present petition is filed on the ground that parties have settled their disputes and respondent No

(7) SANJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. Crl. M.A. 16437/2020 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 2336/2020 Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby for quashing of FIR No.497/2020 dated 21.09.2020, registered at PS - Narela Industrial Area, Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom.Notice issued.Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and with the con

(8) M.N. JAGADEESH Vs. G. RACHAIAH [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 29.10.2019, passed in I.A.No.438 of 2019 in O.S.No.71 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, wherein and whereunder an application filed, under Section 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., by the respondents/defendants seeking to stay the suit, was allowed.The facts in issue are as under:The petitioners/plaintiffs herein filed O.S.No.71 of 2018 for grant of pe

(9) ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MAMIDI PRAKASH MANCHALA PRAKASH [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., questioning the order, dated 14.02.2020, passed in E.P.No.163 of 2015 in O.S.No.378 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, wherein and whereunder the petition filed by the respondent/Decree Holder for delivery of possession of E.P. Scheduled Property in his favour, was allowed and ordered issuance of notice under Order 21 Rule 35 of C.P.C. to the petitioner/Judgment Debtor.The brief facts which

(10) DAREDDY VINEETH REDDY Vs. DAREDDY VENU GOPAL REDDDY [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
This Appeal is filed challenging the order dt.16.07.2019 passed in Interlocutory Application No.66 of 2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2018 on the file of V Additional District Judge, at Bhongir.The appellant herein is plaintiff in the above suit.The appellant filed the said suit against respondents for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for allotment of 1/3rd share to himself, and to declare that all transactions pertaining to the suit schedule properties are null and void, and not binding on

(11) A. SHALIVAHANA REDDY Vs. GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
Since common issues arise for consideration in these two Writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.The petitioner in W.P.No.14881 of 2020 is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Nos.141 and 140 Part admeasuring 461 square yards in Block No.III on Southern part of the land in Survey No.78 (78/B as per internal division) of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased it from M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited under a Registered Sale Deed

(12) RAMESHJI SHAKRAJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, mainly supervisory jurisdiction so also inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the order dated 22.10.2020 in Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 2020 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kalol, at Mahesana and also quash and set aside order dated 01.10.2020 passed by Judicial Magi

(13) MITUL RAJESHKUMAR KHAJANCHIWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The petitioner has filed this application seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, mainly supervisory jurisdiction to release the muddamal vehicle- Maruti Suzuki Ind. Ltd. Alto K10 VXI BS4, Car bearing RTO registration No. GJ-21-AQ-0257 in connection with the FIR being III- CR No. 1211 of 2019 registered with Pandesara Police Station, District Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116-B, 81 and 98(2) of the Gu

(14) VED PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 17.03.2020; whereby, the services of the incumbents like the petitioner, including the petitioner, have been directed to be repatriated to their parent department i.e. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Tilhan Sangh on the anvil that they stood retired or to retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Petitioner further seeks direction to allow the petitioner to continue in service beyond 60 years of age till 62 years of age. Further direction is

(15) VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P & ANOTHER [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
Petitioner has approached this Court for modification of order dated 12.9.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Bail Application No. 187 of 2019, titled Virender Kumar vs. State of H.P., whereby condition to surrender the passport by petitioner at the time of granting the bail has been imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner is also praying for direction to Investigating Officer to return his passport so as to enable him to visit abroad and earn his livelihood.Petitioner is an accused

(16) TRILOK CHAND @ TRILOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.This order shall dispose of CRM-M-14814 of 2020 titled as Trilok Chand @ Trilok Kumar Choudhary and another versus State of Haryana and another and CRM-M-18458 of 2020 titled as A.K. Sharma @ Ashok Kumar Sharma versus State of Haryana and others, as both these petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and seek quashing of FIR No.175 dated 22.05.20

(17) HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, whereby the appeal of the applicant had been dismissed. Resultantly, the directions that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.3 Narinder Nath son of Jai Ram from the date of the application as per the order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Offi

(18) ADARSH NATAYA SANSATHA Vs. ASHOK MEHTA AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The petitioner-defendant No.3, in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks setting aside of the order dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.The reasons given in the impugned order are well justified as such, as the Trial Court has come to the rightful conclusion while dealing with an application under the said

(19) AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing. CRM Nos.13558 & 28330 of 2020 Prayer made in both the applications is for placing on record documents/disclosure statements of the petitioner and co-accused Pardeep and Waseem. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The accompanying documents are taken on record. Main case Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.250 dated 30.08

(20) JAGDISH @ JAGGA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-11-2020
The case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing.Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in his 7th attempt under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.140 dated 03.05.2014, registered under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 IPC and Section 25 of Act No.54 of the Arms Act (Section 216 IPC added later on and Section 25 of Act No.54 of the Arms Act deleted) at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.Earlier, petitions bearing CRM-M No.43345 of 2016 and CRM-M No.22223 of 2017