ive

Latest Cases

(981) THOUGHT BLURB Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Heard Mr.Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.Pradeep S. 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 the order of the respondents in rejecting the application (declaration) of the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 as conveyed vide e-mail dated 27th January, 2020 and further seeks a d

(982) MANDAKANI KACHRU KOKANE @ MANDAKANI VISHNU GODSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2020, passed by the Respondent No.2-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik in Case No. 3809 of 2019 and further relief seeking direction to the respondent no. 2 to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner for "Kunbi" caste which comes under Other Backward Caste. The petitioner has also sought relief seeking direction to the respondent no

(983) K.I.P.L. VISTACORE INFRA PROJECTS J V Vs. ICHALKARANJEE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OFFICE AT COUNCIL OFFICE, ICHALKARANJI DIST KOLHAPUR [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
By Writ Petition (St.) No.4077 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 26th February 2020 passed by the Chief Officer, Ichalkaranjee Municipal Council cancelling, revoking and concluding the contract with the petitioner and seeks an order and direction against the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 4th February 2020 and to allow the petitioner to complet

(984) SURESH VINAYAK MORAJKAR ALIAS SURESH VINAYAK AZGAONKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (PANAJI BENCH)] 27-10-2020
Heard Mr. P. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellants in both these Appeals and Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondents in both these Appeals. Both these Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 24th September, 2014 in Special Case No.35/2013/D (Special Case No.2/2011 (old)) made by the Special Court for CBI in Goa at Mapusa. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.59/2014 (Suresh Morajkar) was convicted for a

(985) SAMADHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)] 27-10-2020
All these Criminal Writ Petitions are directed against the orders passed by the respective Jail Superintendents of the Harsool Jail at Aurangabad and Nashik Road Central Jail at Nashik.We have taken up all these petitions together for adjudication, solely for the reason that, in all these petitions, the impugned orders rejecting the applications of these petitioners for emergency parole under Rule 19 (1)(C) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred

(986) ABHISHEK MANGLA Vs. STATE OF H P [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
These four petitions preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C are being disposed of by this common order as common status report filed on behalf of respondent-State is to be considered on the basis of common facts and circumstances.Petitioner Abhishek Mangla is husband of complainant, whereas, Pat Ram Mangla, Shirli Mangla and Meenal Mangla are father, mother and sister of Abhishek Mangla.Common status report filed on behalf of respondent-State has been taken on record, wherein contents of complaint s

(987) SUKHPREET SINGH SIDHU AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
The case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Presence of Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/UPSC could not be recorded in the previous order dated 14.10.2020 due to some oversight. This Court has acknowledged her presence for respondent No.2/UPSC throughout the proceedings of the case.Petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No

(988) VIPIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
This is the second petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C .for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.168 dated 24.5.2019 under Section 408 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 56, Gurugram, District Gurugram. The first petition, i.e. CRM-M-29963-2019 was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.7.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to decide the regular bail application within a period of one week thereafter.The

(989) MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRABHAKAR [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (NAGPUR BENCH)] 27-10-2020
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.By this writ petition, the employer has approached this Court challenging an order passed by the Industrial Court, whereby a Complaint filed by the respondent - employee has been allowed and the employer has been restrained from recovering certain excess payments made to the respondent.The respondent, being a project affected person whose land was acquired by the petitioner power generation company for a project, w

(990) SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. CBIC AND OTHERS [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Rule made returnable made forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Writ Petition is being heard finally.This Petition dated 4th September, 2020 has been moved by the Petitioner vide Advocate's praecipe dated 6th September, 2020, for the following reliefs:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and quash the impugned Standing Orders; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a w

(991) MEHBOOB @ GHADIYALI ABDUL KARIM VORA THRU MANSURI MAKSUDBHAI RASULBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
The present Application has been filed by the applicant-convict under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India and various provisions of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") contending that he is in jail since last 10 years as he has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2009 by the Sessions Court, Anand vide judgment and order dated 28.2.2013. It is submitted that against the judgment and order,

(992) DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO JETHABHAI BARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. In both these applications, the applicant is the same and the issue involved is also similar and hence, they are decided by this common judgment. In Criminal Misc. Application No.12722 of 2020 preferred under section under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint registered as C.R. No. III - 226 of 2019 with Veraval Police Station

(993) SURESHBHAI DALABHAI KOLI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mahesh Patel, learned advocate, waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 respectively.This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the complaint being FIR No.11217032200013 of 2020 registered with Santalpur Police Station for offfences punishable under sections 325, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Sche

(994) VANKAR PRAVINABEN MOHANBHAI & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
In the facts of the case and having regard to the consent and request of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition was taken up for final consideration. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Asmita Patel waives service of Rule. Heard learned advocate Ms.Niyati Vaishnav for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have prayed

(995) ANIL PRABHAKAR TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Mr. Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent- State of Gujarat.The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.-11210005201283 of 2020 registered with Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat city for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.Heard Mr. Bhunesh Rupera learned advocate for th

(996) KAILASHBHAI DEVNANAD BHOJWANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. N.R. Kodekar states that the matter is settled between the parties.Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soni, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. Ms. Kanchan Tekwani, the learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2 original complainant.Considering the issue involved in the present application and wi

(997) SANJAYBHAI MAGANBHAI RANGPARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondalia states that the matter is settled between the parties.Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soni, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. Mr. Keval Barot, the learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2 original complainant.Considering the issue involved in the present application and wit

(998) SHAILESHBHAI LIMJIBHAI RATHVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to get the custody of muddamal vehicle being Aviator Scooter bearing registration No.GJ-17-BL-6292, which is seized by police in connection with FIR being C.R.No.III-258 of 2019 registered with Rajgadh Police Station, District Panchmahals for offences punishable under sections 65(A), 65(E), and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.As per the averments made in this petition, the vehicle being Aviator Scooter

(999) VINAYSINH ISHVARSINH ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made following substantive reliefs: A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction directing the respondent to release/handover of the seized Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., ECO 5 Seater, bearing registration No.GJ-01-RB-4793, Chassis No.MA3ERLF1S00306425 Engine NO.G12BN282737 seized by the investigation authority in connection with complaint registered with Prohibition C.R. No.III-250 of 2017 re

(1000) BHARAT JAYRAM PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT [GUJARAT HIGH COURT] 27-10-2020
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.By way of present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C. R. No.11993002201181 of 2020 registered with Adipur Police Station, Gandhidham, District Kachchh (East) for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and