ive

Latest Cases

(1) MOHD HUSSAIN MOLANI Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [DELHI HIGH COURT] 23-10-2020
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 120-B - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 17 and 21 - Terror Funding Case - Plea seeking interim bail for period of one month - One of the grounds of accused wife had to undergo surgery for 'potential hysterectomy' because of uterine fibroids - As per medical record prima facie at this stage, no major surgery is required for treating the wife - No case for interim bail is made out, however in the interest of justice, if the wife of the appella

(2) RAGHBIR SINGH @ LUCKY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-10-2020
The petitioners Raghbir Singh @ Lucky and Paramjit Singh @ Pammu seek grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 30 dated 26.2.2020 under Sections 302, 307, 354, 341, 323, 365, 506 and 148/149 of IPC and under section 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar. The F.I.R. was registered at the instance of Smt. Parveen Kumari, wherein it is alleged that on 25.2.2020, when she along with her 'devar' (younger brother of husband)

(3) A.K. BHOKAR AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 30-09-2020
The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing the Technical Summary (Annexure P-2), letter dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-18) and letter dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure P-19). In brief, In a tender dated 18.02.2020 for Labour, Cartage and Transportation of Fertilizer, there were three participants and at the time of opening of the technical bid, all the three were rejected but the bid of the petitioner-firm was rejected on the ground that it was debarred fo

(4) KARAMBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 30-09-2020
Petitioners joined the respondent Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as Corporation) as Junior Engineers pursuant to appointment letters having been issued to them in the month of September 2015. Instant petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the Corporation to treat the petitioners as appointees of 2014 batch w.e.f. the dates other Junior Engineers were appointed through the same selection process alongwith consequential benefits in the nature of

(5) ANANT RAM JANTA HOSPITAL BARWALA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 29-09-2020
The petitioners herein seek to challenge the order dated 25.06.2020 as issued by the Chairman, District Appropriate Authority-Cum-Civil Surgeon, Hisar, by which permission given to the petitioners to sell ultrasound machines in question has been withdrawn. In brief, the facts as stated are that petitioner No. 1 applied to respondent No. 3, namely District Appropriate Authority (under the PC & PNDT Act 1994) for grant of Certificate of Registration to run a mobile ultrasound unit, which was issue

(6) BOBY @ SUSHIL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 29-09-2020
This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 08.04.2011/11.04.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 705 of 2005 (State vs. Boby @ Sushil), Crime No. 85/435/2005, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur and S.T. No. 706 of 2005 (State vs. Boby @ Sushil), Case Crime No. 86/436/2005, under Section 25/4 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, whereby the accused-appellant Boby @ Sushil has been con

(7) RAM AJOR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 29-09-2020
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order 07.08.2006 / 08.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / FTC, court No. 3, Basti in Session Trial No. 267 of of 2004 (State Vs. Ram Ajor and another), Police Station Dudhara, District Basti, whereby accused-appellant Ram Ajor has been convicted under sections 498A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter refered as DP Act) and he was sentenced to th

(8) SARVESH VERMA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 29-09-2020
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Smt. Sarvesh Verma (mother-in-law) and Vishambhar Dayal Verma (father-in-law) with a prayer for setting aside order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 533 of 2016, Smt. Rakhi Verma Vs. Smt. Sarvesh Verma and others, u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the court Special

(9) GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI [SECOND BAIL] Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 28-09-2020
Called on. The case is being heard through virtual hearing. The present bail application is moved on behalf of the accused-applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 29 of 2017, under Sections 376D, 354(A)(I), 504, 506, 509 IPC and Sections 5(G)/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Gautam Palli, District Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicant Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Advocate and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Anurag Verma representing learned Additional Advocate General Sri Vinod Sahi

(10) DEEPAK GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA [ORISSA HIGH COURT] 28-09-2020
Whether right to speedy trial which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a remote control in the hands of prosecution prosecuting an accused in a criminal case, so that it can take the trial speedily whenever it desires and slow it down to create frightening moments for the accused to carry an impression that he is fighting an endless battle? Can an accused be left to become a puppet in the hands of the prosecuting agency? Will the trial Court remain as a silent spectator when e

(11) AJMER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-09-2020
By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking the relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the appeal, as preferred by them against the order handed down by respondent no.3 on 03.12.2018 declaring respondent No.4 to be the owner of the land in dispute (for short "disputed land"), had been dismissed. Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual-matrix, as canvass

(12) HARSH GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 28-09-2020
The lis between the parties which calls for adjudication in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled under the existing rules to change his discipline? The petitioner joined Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Ropar in the academic session commencing in the year 2019 and was allotted the discipline of 'Mechanical Engineering Dual Degree'. On completion of the first year of his course, the petitioner sent an email dated 27.06.2020 to the Director of the Institute requesting for change to

(13) VAIBHAV JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 28-09-2020
These four connected criminal appeals arise out of a common judgement and order dated 09.11.2006 passed by Special Judge (E. C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2005 (State Vs. Vaibhav Jain and four others) under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 427 I.P.C., P.S.-Bilaspur, District-Rampur arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2004 under Sections 302, 201, 427 I.P.C. P.S.-Bilaspur, District-Rampur whereby four of the accused namely Vaibhav Jain, Kaushal Kishore Ja

(14) ASI (STENO) HRISHIKESH DAS Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 25-09-2020
Heard Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the newly impleaded respondent nos. 6 to 10. The State is represented by Shri D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. Considering the subject matter in dispute and completion of exchange of pleadings and as agreed to by the parties, this matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Further, urgency was expressed by the parties. The princi

(15) PRAFULLA CH SADANGI (SINCE DEAD) Vs. GENERAL MANAGER [ORISSA HIGH COURT] 25-09-2020
Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner. The facts and cause of action in both the cases being inter- connected, both the writ petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. The original petitioner-Prafulla Chandra Sadangi since died during pendency of the writ petition was substituted by the present petitioners as legal representatives. The case of the petitioner in common is that, in the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1996 (hereinafter stated as

(16) BIMAL CHANDRA DEORI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 24-09-2020
Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Doley, learned State counsel for respondent no. 1; Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing counsel, Industries & Commerce Department for respondent no. 2; Mr. G. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, Assam Industrial Development Corporation for respondent no. 3 and Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. The subject-matter in this writ petition filed under Artic

(17) DHARMENDRA TALUKDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM [GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 23-09-2020
The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference. This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accusedpetitioner, namely, Sri Dharmendra Talukdar, in connection with Geetanagar Police Station Case No.231/2020 registered under Sections 341/326/354/294/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State Respondent. Case diary has been

(18) MD AKKASH ALI TENDERER Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 23-09-2020
Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in both the writ petitions. Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP(C) No.3026/2020 and for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP(C) No.2490/2020, Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in WP(C) No.3026/2020 and Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.3026/2020 and respondent No.5

(19) AKSHAY KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER [GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 22-09-2020
Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. Assam for the respondents. The petitioner Akshay Kr. Jaiswal (hereininafter referred to as the petitioner only) has filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the FIR No. 119 of 2020 and charge-sheet No. 98/2016 of Khatkhati Police Station in the district of Karbi Anglong. The factual matrix giving rise to this matter is like this--------- On 20

(20) MADUGULA PUSHPANJALI Vs. KUNDURU SUNANDA [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
These two appeals arise between the same parties out of the same suit and therefore they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. The appellants in both the appeals are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.863 of 2019 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 5 Respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs filed the said suit against appellants in respect of an open land admeasuring Ac.4.28 gts forming part of southern p