ive

Latest Cases

(41) SUJARAM LADAJI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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 15.05.2019 in Criminal Revision Application No. 10 of 2019 passed by the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur and also quash and set aside order dated 15.04.2019 passe

(42) AMITBHAI PRAHLADRAY CHAVLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.The petitioner apprehends that the petitioner is likely to be detained under the PASA Act on the pretext of four F.I.R/s being Prohibition C.R.No.6656 of 2019 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station for the offence punishable u/s 65(A)(E) and 116(B) of the Prohibition Act.During the course of hearing, the State was directed to place on record the detention o

(43) SURAJ RANA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking their release in case FIR No. 216 of 2020, dated 30.07.2020, under Sections 376(D), 452, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, they are permanent resident of the place and neither

(44) HEM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking his release, in case FIR No. 165 of 2020, dated 17.11.2020, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is permanent resident of Hi

(45) PHOOLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
The matters are taken up through video conference.The present bail applicants have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 158 of 2020, dated 09.11.2020, under Sections 420, 120B, 406, 409, 467 and 471 IPC, registered in Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are permanent reside

(46) TARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of selection of private respondent No. 5 for appointment to the post of driver under Scheduled Caste category in Police Department in District Kullu, H.P. and for directions to respondent-Department to conduct fresh interview to the said post by calling eligible qualified candidates including the petitioner to select a genuine candidate to the said post.Undisputed facts in present case are that vide Compulsory Notification dated 12.7.2017, (Annex

(47) PADAM SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
Prayer in these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners namely Padam Singh Yadav, Hari Singh and Savitri in FIR No.526 dated 11.11.2019, registered under Sections 323, 34, 377, 406, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurugram.The petitioners namely Hari Singh and Savitri in CRM-M No.2172 of 2020 are the parents-in-law of the complainant - Ansuiya Yadav whereas the petitioner - Padam Singh Yadav in CRM-M No.2172 o

(48) M/S G R PALLE ELECTRICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
Heard Mr. Ashok Kotangle, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Jetly, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr. J. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Designated Committee rejecting its application (declaration) under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and further seeks a direction to the respondents to consider afre

(49) SUNANDA ALIAS URMILA U KALANGUTKAR WIFE OF UMESH KALANGUTKAR Vs. SURENDRA RAMDAS NAIK NACHINOLKAR MAJOR [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (GOA BENCH)] 26-11-2020
Present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award in Claim Petition No.106 of 1997 dated 16/10/2012. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation.The petitioner claim before the Claim Tribunal was as under : That on 28/04/1997, the petitioner was the pillion rider on the scooter bearing No.GA-01-H-0969 and the same was driven by her brother Anand Naik. While they were climbing the slope at Kundaim a truck bearing No.GA-01-T3378 came from the opposite direc

(50) NINA CORREA COLACO Vs. SIDDHARTH SUBHAS KAMAT [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (GOA BENCH)] 26-11-2020
Heard Ms. C. Afonso, learned Counsel for the appellant.The petition is filed for enhancement of compensation.The present appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.10.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, in Claim Petition No. 74 of 2007.The case of the claimants before Claims Tribunal was that on 11.03.2007, at about 3.15 a.m., she and her friend were proceeding from Arpora towards Panaji, by Santro Car bearing no. GA-08-E-6274. The driver responden

(51) PRAKASH SAWANT DESSAI Vs. CARMINA NOQUEIRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (GOA BENCH)] 26-11-2020
Present appeal is filed by the appellants (legal heirs of the original claimant) being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award in Claim Petition No.127 of 2011 dated 25/07/2013. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation.The original Claimant's claim before the Claim Tribunal was as under : That on 15/09/2010 at about 18.15 hours the claimant was walking in a procession alongwith other people for emersion of lord Ganesh idol. The procession was proceeding from Grampurush Temple to interior

(52) RAMANBHAI LALLUBHAI TADVI SINCE DECD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final disposal today.By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have made following prayers: "7(B). YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) to hold and declare that action on the part of the respondents in not making full payment of pensionary benefits to the petitione

(53) VISHALBHAI BHARATBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for quashing of the FIR being C. R. No. 11191020201381 of 2020, registered with the Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Dist. Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under sections 324, 427 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and section 135(1) of the G. P. Act with all further and consequential proceedings arising pursuant to the said FIR.Heard lear

(54) NIKITA NITINBHAI SUMRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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- 2 Wheeler Vehicle- Suzuki Excess bearing RTO registration No. GJ-05-PN-7682 in connection with the FIR being CR No.- 11210007200198 of 2020 registered with Jahangirpura Police Station, District - Surat City for the offence punishable under Sections 65(E), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat P

(55) KISHAN JANDU DAMOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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- Motor Cycle- HF Delux BS4 (Make- Hero Motocorp Ltd) bearing RTO registration No. MP-69-MB-1934 in connection with the FIR being CR No. III- 204 of 2018 registered with Chhotaudepur Police Station, District - Chhotaudepur for the offence punishable under Sections 65(E), 81 and 98(2) of

(56) SANGITABEN PRABHATBHAI PAGI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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 EECO Car bearing RTO registration No. GJ-06-EH-5850 in connection with the FIR being CR No. - 11207077200022 of 2020 registered with Damavav Police Station, District - Panchmahal for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116-B and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibiti

(57) RAVAL KANJIBHAI CHHANABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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- Tata 407 Car bearing RTO registration No. GJ-16-U-7000 in connection with the FIR being III- CR No. - 2 of 2019 registered with Sanand GIDC, Police Station, District - Ahmedabad (Rural) for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 116-B, 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition

(58) DAYA RAM HARIRAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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- Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd, Innova 2.5G bearing RTO registration No. RJ-27-UA-0979 in connection with the FIR being CR No. III- 64 of 2018 registered with Chithoda Police Station, District - Sabarkantha for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujar

(59) ARVINDKUMAR SOMABHAI JADAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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- Mahindra Bolero Max bearing RTO registration No. GJ-06-AU-0890 in connection with the FIR being CR No. - 11207055200128 of 2020 registered with Rajgadh Police Station, District - Panchmahal for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

(60) RAJPARA AMITBHAI KESHUBHAI POA OF ARJANBHAI MADHABHAI PALANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 26-11-2020
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- Ashok Leyland Truck, bearing RTO registration No. GJ-03-Y-8881 in connection with the FIR being CR No. III- 164 of 2019 registered with Vapi GIDC Police Station, District - Valsad for the offence punishable under Sections 65(A)(E), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.Heard lea