ive

Latest Cases

(61) COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE SMARAK VIDYALAYA ISIPUR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
Heard Sri H.N. Singh learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Mishra for the contesting private respondents.The petitioners impugn the order dated 17 March 2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, the second respondent herein. In terms of the aforesaid order the second respondent has recalled his order of 3 July 2018 registering the list of office bearers of the Society for the year 2018-19. The order essentially accepts the objections taken by the privat

(62) SANJAY Vs. STATE OF U P [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH)] 25-11-2020
This criminal appeal, under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'), has been preferred by the appellant-Sanjay (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant), against the judgment and order dated 29.03.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No.557/2011, arising out of Case Crime No.110/2009 under Sections-363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Lonar, District-Hardoi., whereby the appellant has been convicted a

(63) VINUBHAI MOHANBHAI ZALAVADIYA Vs. DHULAJI SOMAJI THAKOR & OTHERS [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
Learned Advocate, Mr.D.K. Puj waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned Advocate, Mr. Jigar Patel waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent No.9.This petition is filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 22-09-2020 passed below application Exh-10 and order dated 08-09-2020 passed below Exh-7 passed by the 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in the proceedings of Special Civil Suit No. 96 of 2020. The

(64) SAIYED HAIDERALI MOHAMMEDALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India to release the muddamal vehicle - Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero TRKopn Truck, bearing RTO registration No. GJ-06-AX-5278, in connection with the FIR being III-C.R. No. 155 of 2017, registered before the Tankara Police Station, Dist.: Morbi for the offence punishable under Sections 65(E), 116B and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act.Heard le

(65) GEETABEN AJMALJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) to release the muddamal vehicle - Bajaj Auto Ltd., Re Compact CNG, bearing RTO registration No. GJ-01-TD-2756, in connection with the FIR being III-C.R. No. 192 of 2019, registered before the Adalaj Police Station, Dist.: Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under S

(66) HELMA NAIK PRASAD Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner - accused No.16 seeking to modify the order dated 07.10.2020 reducing the surety amount from one lakh rupees to Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand rupees only) with two sureties, in Crl.M.P.No.2918 of 2020 in Cr.No.622 of 2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of

(67) VELDHI RADHAKRISHNA, AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, AND ANOTHER [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.74 of 2018 on the file of Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, to quash the proceedings in the above said crime.During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2-de facto complainant filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 to record the compromise and to compound the offences in

(68) THOTA ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1270 of 2020 on the file of L.B.Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner/ accused and for a consequential direction as to the Police to return the seized property. The petitioner is accused in the above said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 272, 273 and 188 of IPC and Section 20(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Adverti

(69) REKHALA BHASKAR Vs. NARAGONI SIVAPRASAD AND OTHERS [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
This petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., to withdraw Crl.A.No.92 of 2019 from the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Khammam and transfer the same to the Court of I Additional District Judge-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Khammam or Principal District Special Court for Women-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam.The petitioner herein filed a private complaint and the same was referred to Khmamm II Town Police and the Police registered Crime No.33 of 2010 ag

(70) ATLURI PALLAVI AND OTHERS Vs. KESANDLA NARAYANA REDDY [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
This Appeal is preferred challenging the order dt.22.09.2020 in IA.No.294 of 2020 in OS.No.70 of 2020 on the file of the XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri.The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the above suit.The said suit had been filed by the appellants against the sole respondent for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.The plaint A schedule property,

(71) SYED MOHD MUKARAM Vs. LA OFFICER/ERO [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
This Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the judgment and decree dt.29.03.2001 passed in O.P.No.1 of 1990 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad District.The appellants herein are claimants in the above O.P.An extent of Acs.3.22 gts. situate in Survey No.117 of Mandamarri Village belonging to the appellants/claimants had been acquired by respondents for the purpose of construction of workers' quarters of Singareni Collieries Company. This

(72) RADHIKA ANIL UPADHYAYA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, BRK BUILDING, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD, AND OTHERS [TELANGANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
Since the legal issues in both the writ petitions are the same, although the facts are different to a limited extent, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.The petitioner has filed both these habeas corpus writ petitions on behalf of her husband, Mr. Anil Karkala Upadhyaya ('detenu'), in order to challenge his arrest effected on 02-10-2020 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Control Room, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, the respondent No. 4, in connection with

(73) VISHAL SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER [DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
Vide the present petition, petitioners seek direction for quashing of FIR No.502/2016 dated 10.10.2016 registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.Notice issued.Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by counsel for respondent no.2 and with the consent of counsel for parties, present petition is taken up for final disposal.Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 got married on 07.07.2014 as per Hindu rites and rituals.Petitioners and respondent no.

(74) SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER [DELHI HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. Crl. M.A. 16255/2020 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CRL.M.C.2294/2020 Vide the present petition, petitioners seek direction for quashing of FIR No.328/2014 dated 31.05.2014 registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.Notice issued.Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by counsel for respondent no.2 and with the consent of

(75) VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
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.125 of 2020, dated 27.8.2020, under Sections 15-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station, Damtal, 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. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a

(76) PRADEEP KUMAR ATRI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
CMP No. 12585 of 2020 in CWP No. 3401 of 2020 This application is allowed, as prayed for and the applicant is impleaded as respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 3401 of 2020. The application stands disposed of accordingly. CWPs No. 2101, 3401, 3463 and 3786 of 2020 & CMP No. 12586 of 2020 in CWP No. 3401 of 2020 The petitioners before this Court are the Medical Officers, who have undergone Post Graduation in respective specialties. Their grievance is that for the purpose of undergoing Senior Residency Cou

(77) AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
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. 113 of 2020, dated 13.04.2020, under Sections 420, 419, 212 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are permanent residents of D

(78) ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for making the victim, aged 21 years, as her friend by impersonating with a Hindu name despite the fact that he was a Muslim, subsequently establishing sexual relations with her on promise to marry her and later on resiling from the same, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.Based on a complaint, the police arrested the petitioner on 22.09.2020, in FIR No.35 of 2020, dated 21.09.2020, registered under Sections 376, 506, 419, 201 read wi

(79) KANWARBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.5 dated 14.10.2020 registered under Sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') at Police Station N.R.I., District Amritsar.Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of the complainant 'G' name not disclosed, she has stated that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and in the year 2016, she had gone to Australia for higher studies.

(80) SHAKEEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-11-2020
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.198 dated 01.06.2020 registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 188, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), 6 and 19 of the POCSO Act and 67-B of the Information Technology Act, at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh.Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR was registered at the instance of the father of the victim with the allegation that he is a sugar patient and remained admit