ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(121) M.C. BABY Vs. M/S SASTHA HOME TECH [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-05-2023
These two revision petitions are preferred by the accused who was held guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Trial Court in C.C.No:1647/2006 and C.C.No.1648/2006 (on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet) and the same on appeal, confirmed by the Lower Appellant Court in C.A.No.111/2016 and C.A.No.112/2016 respectively (on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai).
India Law Library Docid # 1872106

(122) K. KUMARESAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 18-05-2023
On 16.12.2018 at about 22.00 hrs, Mr.Raja, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to SRMC Police Station received a secret information from his informant that narcotic drugs banned by the State is sold in front of the Multi-storied Residential Apartment at Porur by-pass Road. He reduced the information into writing. Informed his immediate superior-the Inspector of Police about the information received over phone and proceeded to the spot mentioned by the informant along with his team. On identificatio
India Law Library Docid # 1872109

(123) SUMIT KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PP AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 18-05-2023
These appeals have been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 15.03.2023 and 19.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Merta rejecting the bail applications preferred on behalf of the appellants who are in custody in connection with FIR No.32/2023, Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur
India Law Library Docid # 1873422

(124) JOSEPH B BRAGANZA Vs. STATE OF GOA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 17-05-2023
Ms Braganza would submit that the order dtd. 10/5/2023, rendered by the learned District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge, N.D.P.S. Court in CRMA/124 and CRMA/125 of 2023 whereby a notice issued to the proposed accused, is contrary to the enunciation of law of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah - (2005) 4 SCC 370 which is referred to and relied upon by a relatively recent decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab vs. J
India Law Library Docid # 1870215

(125) HEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PP [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-05-2023
The instant revision petition under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.117/2021, affirming the judgment dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.215/2011 (CIS No.4011/2014),
India Law Library Docid # 1873266

(126) MOHAN SINGH CHATHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PP AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-05-2023
The instant miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner- Mohan Singh Chatha S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.165/2018 registered at Police Station Chunawad, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 436 & 457 of the IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof qua the petitioner.
India Law Library Docid # 1873268

(127) SMT. ANANDI EKNATH SHETKE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PP AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 17-05-2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was partner in the firm namely Jyotibha Trading Company but later on petitioner executed a partnership dissolution deed on 29.01.2021 and petitioner informed the bank that she is no more a partner of the said firm. It is argued that petitioner is not involved in the affairs of the firm with the Bank and she has been implicated in this case only on the basis of name being shown as partner in the Bank account of the firm.
India Law Library Docid # 1873419

(128) RAJU YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-05-2023
These are appeals seeking setting aside of the judgement dated 31.01.2020 and order on sentence dated 27.06.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO ACT)/ ASJ-01, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case S.C. No. 55924/2016, FIR No. 224/2013, u/s 376/342/506/120B/109 IPC and section 4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act"), registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
India Law Library Docid # 1869237

(129) JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-05-2023
The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ajmer in Sessions Case No.19/2018 whereby an order framing charge has been passed against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
India Law Library Docid # 1873267

(130) YOGENDRA SINGH NEGI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-05-2023
The case of the prosecution is that at about 10-11 a.m., on the morning of 05.01.2023, the appellant who is a doctor working in a Government hospital, in an inebriated state, while driving his car bearing No.RJ-07-CD-5020 caused an accident at the hospital, where he was working, wherein the car rammed into the general public/patients standing there resulting in on the spot death of one Bhanwar Lal and miscarriage of a pregnant woman namely Smt. Nazia Bano.
India Law Library Docid # 1873269

(131) SMT. RAYA KANWARI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PP AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-05-2023
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cross cases have been registered between the parties and no specific allegation has been levelled against both the accused. Counsel further submits that no offence has been made out against the present petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR may be quashed.
India Law Library Docid # 1873461

(132) DHANNA RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-05-2023
Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was having an agricultural land comprising Khasra No.149 situated at Village Shimbhu Pura, Tehsil- Nawa, District Nagaur and the private respondent was also having an agricultural land comprising Khasra Nos.147 & 148 at Village Shimbhu Pura, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.
India Law Library Docid # 1873516

(133) DEOKI NANDAN Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 16-05-2023
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 30.5.1984 and his services were terminated orally on 29.10.1984. Counsel submits that a vague remark was issued against the petitioner that nine passengers were found without ticket. Counsel submits that neither any charge-sheet was given nor any enquiry was held against the petitioner, hence his termination order is punitive. Counsel submits that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25F, G, H of the
India Law Library Docid # 1873622

(134) STATE OF ASSAM Vs. MD. HUSSAIN ALI [GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 12-05-2023
This intra-Court writ appeal is directed against order dtd. 22/9/2014 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby, WP(C) No.3551/2013 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner was accepted and the appellant/State was directed to count the services rendered by the respondent/writ petitioner as Sub-Registrar on commission basis prior to his regularization against the said post and to grant him the benefits under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1969).
India Law Library Docid # 1870113

(135) AVANIGADDA VENKAYAMMA, KRISHNA DIST Vs. MUNNANGI RAGHAVULU, KRISHNA DIST [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 12-05-2023
This appeal has been admitted treating grounds (a), (b), (c) and (f) in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law. The said grounds/substantial questions of law are as follows: (a) Whether it is permissible to parties to adduce oral evidence in proof of title alleged to have been acquired under a will deed and gift deed without either examining a single witness or even producing the documents.
India Law Library Docid # 1870225

(136) PANKHILAL @ PANKHI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PP AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 12-05-2023

India Law Library Docid # 1873264

(137) HOSHIYAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH P.P. AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 12-05-2023
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.798/2022 of Police Station Behror, District Bhiwadi for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 302, 307, 447, 323, 341, 120-B IPC (in the impugned order offences are under Sections 323, 341, 325, 307, 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 447, 120B IPC). He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
India Law Library Docid # 1873405

(138) MAYARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH THE PP [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 12-05-2023
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.185/2022, Police Station Sultanpur, Distt. Kota Rural for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(th) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
India Law Library Docid # 1873406

(139) PRASANN CHANDRA PINCHA AND OTHERS Vs. KANCHAN DEVI AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 12-05-2023
The facts of the case in brief are that plaintiffs Kanchan Devi (deceased) and Prabhat Kumar Pincha (respondents Nos.1 and 2 in SBCWP No.2890/2021 and petitioners in SBCWP No.2147/2021) (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants (including Prasann Kumar, petitioner in SBCWP No.2890/2021 and respondent No.1 in SBCWP No.2147/2021) (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No.1).
India Law Library Docid # 1873536

(140) STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. BHARAT LAL AND OTHERS [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 11-05-2023
Appellant-State has preferred leave to appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.09.1985. Leave was accepted with regard to accused Ghisya, Ram Lal, Bharat Lal and Jagan. During the pendency of this appeal, accused respondents - Ghisya and Jagan have expired and now, the appeal survives only against accused respondents - Bharat Lal and Ram Lal.
India Law Library Docid # 1873265