ive
India Law Library (Website) is free for India Law Library Offline customers only, Please Don't Pay for this website.

User not Logged..
IP Address :44.201.96.43
Latest Cases

(61) WORLD SPORT GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
The above Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") seeking to set aside the Majority Award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 13th July 2020. The Majority Award is passed by Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar (Retd.), a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma (Retd.), also a former Judge of the Supreme Court. The dissenting Award dated 20th July 2020 is given by a former Judge of the Supreme Court

(62) SONIA FAZAL KHANAND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
The 1st Petitioner, Sonia Fazal Khan, is the wife of one Fazal Khan. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, Naeema and Tasneem, are Sonia's and Fazal's married daughters. The Petition says that for the last decade Fazal has been living in a vegetative state. He not only has dementia but has had multiple strokes. There are other complications. The prayer in the Petition is to appoint his wife, Sonia, the 1st Petitioner as the guardian of the Fazal's personal and property.

(63) MAD MAN FILM VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED. Vs. RELIANCE ENTERTAINMENT STUDIOS [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has applied for ad-interim relief seeking an order of injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 from releasing, broadcasting, telecasting and / or exploiting or using any of the elements of the cinematograph film through satellite, digital and / or like media.

(64) LALIT RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA [DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
The instant writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner inter alia seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.

(65) MR. ABHISHEK GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER [DELHI HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for the quashing of charge-sheet dated 4th December, 2021 emanating from FIR No.214/2021 dated 30th October, 2021 registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini, Sector 18, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The FIR No.214/2021 was registered with the Crime Branch, Rohini on the basis of a complaint that was lodged with them on 19th October, 2020 by the respondent No.2 by way of an email addressed to the Commissioner of P

(66) SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS Vs. STATE OF KERALA [KERALA HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr. K. Gopalakrishana Kurup, learned Advocate General submitted that earlier, when normalcy was restored and courts started functioning, this court by order dated 6.8.2021, disposed of the suo motu writ petition.

(67) MAHESH SWAMI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
In the writ petitions, the petitioners relying on the circulars issued by the education department dated 18.10.2011 and 01.06.2012, sought a specific direction that as the education department itself has mandated that teachers could not be deployed for the said work, the respondents be directed not to deploy teachers like petitioners as BLO.

(68) A.G. PONNMANICKAVEL Vs. MR.S. SEKARAN AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
This Court took suo-motu cognizance to review the order dated 19.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.32091 of 2019. It is when the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents informed that a direction for constitution of the Press Council of Tamil Nadu by the State Government is not sustainable. It is also that the prayer in the said Writ Petition was not for a direction to the respondents to constitute the Press Council of Tamil Nadu, but for the consideration of the represe

(69) UPENDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
This appeal from jail by appellant questions the judgment and order of conviction and punishment dated 24.01.2020 and 28.01.2020, respectively, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Amroha in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2017, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 376 I.P.C. and punishing him with death penalty and fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C. and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, coupled with a default sentence of one year ad

(70) PANKAJ TYAGI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
Heard Mr Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the record of the case.

(71) LATA NARESHKUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Dhodia Tribe ". "Dhodia Tribe " has been notified as scheduled tribe in the year 1950 by issuing constitutional order. It is not in dispute that "Dhodia Tribe " is a scheduled tribe not only in the present State of Maharashtra but also in the present State of Gujarat. It is also not in dispute that " Dhodia Tribe " was a scheduled tribe in the erstwhile State of Bombay.
(2022) 2 ALLMR 715

(72) RAJENDRA S/O DILIP MAID Vs. SHUBHANGI @ RANI RAJENDRA MAID [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 16-03-2022
Admittedly, there was a divorce by mutual consent between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent by a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Newasa, on 11/9/2017. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that at the time of divorce, it was mutually and orally agreed that the respondent/mother would permit the petitioner no. 1 to meet Anshuman, twice in a month. However, when the petitioner no. 1 had been to Newasa to
(2022) 2 ALLMR 727

(73) SMT RESHAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 15-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19, 25 and 51A(e) - Wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith
(2022) 1 KCCR 865

(74) NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (KALABURAGI BENCH)] 15-03-2022
These two writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by a linguistic minority educational institution seeking a writ of certiorari as well as a writ of mandamus. The petitioner is praying to quash the revised seat matrix for admission to postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine for the academic year 2021-2022. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus against the third respondent - Karnataka Education Authority to direct the third respondent to hold cou

(75) P. KANNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT] 15-03-2022
The reference by the learned Single Judge is on account of two conflicting judgments delivered by the Division Benches on a challenge to the order of suspension. By the order of reference, the learned Single Judge referred to the view expressed by a Division Bench in the case of the Director General of Police and another v. T.Kamarajan, 2019 SCC Online Mad 35836, and the subsequent judgment delivered by another Division Bench in the case of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TANGEDCO and others

(76) SANTOSH TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-03-2022
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the disapproval letters issued by the respondent no. 1/National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'NMC') rejecting the petitioners' request for grant of permission for increase of seats in the petitioner no.2 college in the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (hereinafter referred to as 'MBBS') course as also in post-graduate courses of MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) and MS (Orthopaedics). The petiti

(77) WING COMMANDER SHYAM NAITHANI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [DELHI HIGH COURT] 15-03-2022
The issue that arises for consideration in the present batch of matters is whether the power of Judicial Review, a basic feature of the Constitution of India conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 has been taken away totally in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Maj. Gen. Shri Kant Sharma and Anr., (2015) 6 SCC 773 thereby denying litigants the right to approach High Court in writ jurisdiction against the judgment and orders passed

(78) M.A.M.RAJA Vs. SPECIAL PERSONAL AND OTHERS [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 15-03-2022
The petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Madurai Bench of Madras high Court and previously, he was practicing in Theni District. The Government appointed Law Officers vide G.O.(D) No. 1176, Home (Courts.V1A) Department, dated 13.10.2021. By the said Government Order, the sixth respondent, namely, S.P.M.Ariff Rahuman, son of Mohamed Sulaiman, has been appointed as Government Pleader for the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam in Theni District.

(79) M/S NANHEY MAL MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 15-03-2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not pressing the Relief Nos. (i) & (ii) of the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition insofar as Relief Nos. (i) & (ii) is concerned, stands dismissed as not pressed. For the rest of the relief, the writ petition is being entertained.

(80) ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 15-03-2022
Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tushar Verma and Vikram B. Trivedi, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Manish Vaish and Sri R.P. Gupta on behalf of the petitioners. Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Addl CSC has put in appearance on behalf of the State. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length passed an order on 16.2.2022 expecting the State Government to take a decision in the light of observations made therein. The or

IP Address :44.201.96.43