ive

Latest Cases

(21) HADULA SANJAY KACHRABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
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 under the provisions of section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to release the muddamal vehicle - Maruti Suzuki Swift Car - four wheeler bearing RTO registration No. GJ-07-AR-9237 in connection with the FIR being Prohibition C. R. III No. 306 of 2019, registered before Shamlaji Police Station, Dist.:

(22) YUNUS HASAMBHAI BHANU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly supervisory jurisdiction so also inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to release the muddamal vehicle Maruti Suzuki Eeco Car - four wheeler bearing RTO registration No. GJ-03-BT-0393 in connection with the FIR being Prohibition C. R. No. 11208035200049 of 2020 registered before the Gandhigram Police S

(23) SOLANKI DHARMENDRASINH CHENUJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to correct the name of the petitioner as "Dharmendrasinh" and name of father of the petitioner as "Chenuji Mansangji Solanki" in the birth certificate of the petitioner annexure-A. The short facts leading to the present petition are that the birth certificate issued by the Aasjol Gram Panchayat wherein the birth date of the petitioner is mentioned as 15.6.1984 and the name of the petitioner is shown as "Dharamsang" and the name of the father o

(24) JADAV BADRU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
This is an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.82 of 2020 of Prohibition & Excise Police Station, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a) and 20(b) (i) of NDPS Act. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has taken the land on lease and no

(25) COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ON BASIS OF NEWS ITEM TITLED SCHOOL SHUT, NO MID-DAY MEAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR [PATNA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The story of the children of the State of Bihar cannot be one of schools to scraps. With this view, this Court took suo moto cognizance of a news item titled, "School shut, no mid-day meal, children in Bihar village back to work selling scrap", Dipankar Goshe, 'School shut, no mid-day meal, children in Bihar village back to work selling scrap', The Indian Express (New Delhi, 6 July 2020) available at

(26) INDOCO REMEDIES LTD. Vs. BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB HOLDINGS IRELAND UNLIMITED COMPANY AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
CM APPL. 16257/2020 in FAO(OS) (COMM) 3/2020 This application, preferred by the appellant in FAO (OS) (COMM) 03/2020 - M/s Indoco Remedies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") - contains two prayers. Prayer (a) is for permitting the applicant to manufacture and sell its product "APIXABID", a generic product of the formulation "Apixaban", during the COVID-2019 pandemic. Prayer (b) is for permission, to the applicant, to sell, and authorise the sale of, approximately 58,000 strips of

(27) JUSTICE FOR ALL Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
It has been wisely said "education is the passport to the future". But what if some passports are better than others, giving the holder access to a better mode and method of education and in turn, a more prosperous future. Inequality in education has been around long before Covid-19, but the pandemic has exacerbated the same by adding another strand/element to it, namely, digital divide. The unparalleled education disruption from the Covid-19 pandemic is far from over, as despite lapse of nearly

(28) BHUPINDER KAUR Vs. PUNJABI ACADEMY [DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
Petitioner herein joined the post of Librarian Grade II in the office of the Respondent on 20.08.1997. On 16.02.2016, Petitioner was given the look after charge of the post of Librarian Grade I in place of another incumbent who was superannuating. On 31.03.2016, Petitioner allegedly informed that on account of her ill-health, she would not be in a position to join the said post and also made various representations in this regard. On 23.06.2017, Petitioner was placed under suspension. Petitioner

(29) ALKA SACHDEVA Vs. SEEMA GUPTA AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
CM APPL.23136/2020 (exemption) & CM APPL.23137/2020 (exemption) Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 461/2020 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. Petitioner impugns adjournment of the execution proceedings by order dated 03.09.2020 by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act and eviction order was passed on 26.09.2019 against the tenants. Mr. Neera

(30) MUKUL MITTAL AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA [DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of any other nature or any other direction/order directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to remove the name of the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 from the impugned "List of Disqualified Directors" prepared by the Respondents, as published and upload on the website of Respondents Nos.1; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of any other

(31) PTI EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. PRESS TRUST OF INDIA LTD. [DELHI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The petitioner in W.P.(C) 10596/2018 is a Trade Union of PTI employees whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10605/2018 is a Federation of four PTI Employees' Unions. Both the petitioners have challenged the retrenchment of 297 employees by Press Trust of India (hereinafter referred to as "PTI") on 29th September, 2018. The petitioners, in both these writ petitions, are seeking the same relief, i.e., quashing of the retrenchment notices dated 29th September, 2018 issued to 297 retrenched employees,

(32) RAFWT KHUGUR BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI [GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. The father of the petitioner who was working in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Assam died in harness on 28.01.2015. On his demise, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The DLC of Kokrajhar district while considering the

(33) MANISHBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The petitioner has filed this application seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, mainly supervisory jurisdiction so also inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release the muddamal vehicle - Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Bolero Maxi Truck Plus(white colour) bearing RTO registration No. GJ-15-YY-1311 in connection with the FIR being CR. No. III -727 of 2019 before the Navsari Rural Police Stat

(34) YOGESH @ DABHOLI MULJIBHAI BORICHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR being No. 11210021200606 of 2020 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 114, 269, 188 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, Section 13(i) of the Gujarat Epidemic Diseases, COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 and Section 135 of the G.P. Act with all further and consequential proceed

(35) TEHAL SINGH @ TEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No.66 of 2020, dated 18.4.2020, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position

(36) AARAF KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 18-09-2020
The applicant has preferred this revision application under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as the Act, for brevity) read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 8th May, 2020 (Annexure A/1) passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.69/2020, whereby order dated 29.04.2020 (Annexure A/2) passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Jus

(37) MARIYAM MATHEWS Vs. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM [KERALA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent - Principal of the Government Law College, Ernakulam to allot her an eligible seat in the LLB (Three Year Course), without insisting for production of Migration Certificate/Transfer Certificate, which she says that she has been unable to obtain on account of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions from the Delhi University, where she is presently pursuing her studies. The petitioner says that as is evident from Ext.P5,

(38) PATTANAKKAD BLOCK SMALL-SCALE COIR MATS AND MATTINGS PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA [KERALA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
Proceedings were inititated against the petitioner society under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Alleging non co-operation by the president Ext.P5 order was passed recommending not to grant orders from Kerala State Coir Corporation to the petitioner society. The statutorily mandated period fixed for enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act is admittedly over. In view thereof, further proceedings under Section 65 and in terms of Exts.P5 cannot be continued. Ext.P6

(39) KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA [KERALA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. The prosecution allegation is that on 04.02.1999 at about 10.00 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of 10 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Heard. It has been argued that since no seal was affixed on the original forwarding note, the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory could not be established and consequently, the conviction and sentenc

(40) HARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA [KERALA HIGH COURT] 18-09-2020
The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution allegation is that on 06.12.1999 at about 4.30 p.m., the appellants were found in possession of 30 litres of wash for the purpose of manufacturing arrack and 500 ml of illicit arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Heard. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that since no forwarding note was produced or marked in this case, the appellants are