ive
Latest Cases

(1) NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Vs. AREEB EJAZ MAJEED [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 23-02-2021
The National Investigation Agency ("NIA") has filed the present appeal challenging order dated 17/03/2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the National Investigation Agency Court, Greater Mumbai ("NIA Court") whereby the bail application filed by the respondent was allowed and the respondent was directed to be released on bail subject to specific conditions. The NIA Court granted stay of its own order till 27/03/2020. The NIA immediately approached this court by fi

(2) ANAND MURLIDHAR SALVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 23-02-2021
The Court of Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Pune by the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2004 passed in Special Case No.25 of 2001, convicted the appellant for the ofences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' for short) and sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fne of Rs.5,000- in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for fve months separately for both the ofences. It

(3) NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Vs. AREEB EJAZ MAJEED [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 23-02-2021
The National Investigation Agency ("NIA") has filed the present appeal challenging order dated 17/03/2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the National Investigation Agency Court, Greater Mumbai ("NIA Court") whereby the bail application filed by the respondent was allowed and the respondent was directed to be released on bail subject to specific conditions. The NIA Court granted stay of its own order till 27/03/2020. The NIA immediately approached this court by fi

(4) ANAND MURLIDHAR SALVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 23-02-2021
The Court of Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Pune by the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2004 passed in Special Case No.25 of 2001, convicted the appellant for the ofences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' for short) and sentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fne of Rs.5,000- in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for fve months separately for both the ofences. It

(5) BANKELAL PRAJAPATI AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF MP [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 22-02-2021
Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Pushpa was married with the petitioner No.1 on 2.3.1995. On the said wedlock, three daughters have born, viz., Richa aged 19 years, Vaishali aged 16 years and Namrata aged 12 years. Soon after marriage, the complainant started torturing the petitioner for residing separately from the parents, who are old and infirm. When the petitioner refused to leave separately, the complainant started mental and physical cruelty in order to blame the petitioner

(6) MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The Petitioners have fled this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions against the Respondents to grant the Petitioners the beneft of the Government Order dated 29th August, 2020 in payment of stamp duty in addition to the concession in stamp duty provided for in the Regulations for development of Integrated Township Project (for short "the said ITP Regulation") which Regulations, appended to the Government Notifcation dated 8th March, 2019, have been framed by

(7) P.V. VARAVARA RAO Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The appeal being Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2021 has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, "the NIA Act") to challenge order dated 26/06/2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge for Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the NIA Court") in NIA Special Case No. 414 of 2020, whereby a bail application filed on behalf of the undertrial on the ground of old age and medical conditions, stood dismissed.

(8) KRSNAA DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-02-2021
The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the letter dated 7/10/2020 (Annexure P/9) whereby it was intimated that the tender is scrapped and the bank guarantees furnished by him were returned. It is further prayed that respondents be directed to proceed further in the NIT and execute the agreement with the petitioner by issuing letter of acceptance for Cluster (II), (III) and (IV). By

(9) SHIVDEV SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 7 petitioners, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the State Government whereby the duly conducted selection process for appointment to the posts of Members of District Consumer Forums which was initiated on the advertisement dated 15.12.2018 (Annexure P-2) was scrapped allegedly arbitrarily in a completely illegal manner without there being any justifiable a

(10) VIKAS BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 14.10.2020 when a police party headed by ASI Kulvinder Singh was present at Rehru Gate, Jalandhar, in connection with nakabandi, then a white coloured swift car in which two persons were sitting was noticed coming from the Pathankot side but upon noticing the police party the driver of the car tried to turn back but was unable to do so and the said two persons were apprehended by the police who disclosed their names as Piyush Arora and Sunny.

(11) JITENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The FIR was lodged at the instance of Kuldeep Mor, XEN. The allegation, in nutshell are that electricity connection bearing No. F15-MH210303 was issued to Pardeep Tyagi for 15 KW load which could be catered through 25 KVA transformer. However, the abovesaid transformer had been unauthorizedly and illegally changed to 100 KVA transformer. It was done to increase the transformer capacity to enable increased supply and consequently increased theft of electricity.

(12) SUNITA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Jagmeet Singh Rai wherein it is alleged that Vicky Rattu was his friend and who knew that the complainant wished to settle in Canada. Vicky Rattu introduced the complainant to petitioner-Sunita Rani while representing that she was into immigration business and had also contested parliamentary election from Chandigarh. Vicky Rattu arranged a meeting of the complainant and his friends with petitioner Sunita who represented that she could send the c

(13) BANKELAL PRAJAPATI AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF MP [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 22-02-2021
Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Pushpa was married with the petitioner No.1 on 2.3.1995. On the said wedlock, three daughters have born, viz., Richa aged 19 years, Vaishali aged 16 years and Namrata aged 12 years. Soon after marriage, the complainant started torturing the petitioner for residing separately from the parents, who are old and infirm. When the petitioner refused to leave separately, the complainant started mental and physical cruelty in order to blame the petitioner

(14) MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The Petitioners have fled this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions against the Respondents to grant the Petitioners the beneft of the Government Order dated 29th August, 2020 in payment of stamp duty in addition to the concession in stamp duty provided for in the Regulations for development of Integrated Township Project (for short "the said ITP Regulation") which Regulations, appended to the Government Notifcation dated 8th March, 2019, have been framed by

(15) P.V. VARAVARA RAO Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The appeal being Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2021 has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, "the NIA Act") to challenge order dated 26/06/2020 passed by the Court of Special Judge for Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the NIA Court") in NIA Special Case No. 414 of 2020, whereby a bail application filed on behalf of the undertrial on the ground of old age and medical conditions, stood dismissed.

(16) KRSNAA DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 22-02-2021
The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the letter dated 7/10/2020 (Annexure P/9) whereby it was intimated that the tender is scrapped and the bank guarantees furnished by him were returned. It is further prayed that respondents be directed to proceed further in the NIT and execute the agreement with the petitioner by issuing letter of acceptance for Cluster (II), (III) and (IV). By

(17) SHIVDEV SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 7 petitioners, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the State Government whereby the duly conducted selection process for appointment to the posts of Members of District Consumer Forums which was initiated on the advertisement dated 15.12.2018 (Annexure P-2) was scrapped allegedly arbitrarily in a completely illegal manner without there being any justifiable a

(18) VIKAS BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 14.10.2020 when a police party headed by ASI Kulvinder Singh was present at Rehru Gate, Jalandhar, in connection with nakabandi, then a white coloured swift car in which two persons were sitting was noticed coming from the Pathankot side but upon noticing the police party the driver of the car tried to turn back but was unable to do so and the said two persons were apprehended by the police who disclosed their names as Piyush Arora and Sunny.

(19) JITENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The FIR was lodged at the instance of Kuldeep Mor, XEN. The allegation, in nutshell are that electricity connection bearing No. F15-MH210303 was issued to Pardeep Tyagi for 15 KW load which could be catered through 25 KVA transformer. However, the abovesaid transformer had been unauthorizedly and illegally changed to 100 KVA transformer. It was done to increase the transformer capacity to enable increased supply and consequently increased theft of electricity.

(20) SUNITA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 22-02-2021
The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Jagmeet Singh Rai wherein it is alleged that Vicky Rattu was his friend and who knew that the complainant wished to settle in Canada. Vicky Rattu introduced the complainant to petitioner-Sunita Rani while representing that she was into immigration business and had also contested parliamentary election from Chandigarh. Vicky Rattu arranged a meeting of the complainant and his friends with petitioner Sunita who represented that she could send the c