ive

Latest Cases

(981) GADIGEYYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 01-09-2020
This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.17/2020 of Haveri Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 302, 504 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). The case of the prosecution is that one Santosh Irayya Hiremath has filed a complaint on 04.02.2020 alleging that he is residing w

(982) DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORISSA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BARIPADA Vs. UMAMANI NAYAK AND OTHERS [ORISSA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
The Divisional Manager, Odisha Forest Development Corporation, Baripada (for short, 'the Corporation') has filed this writ petition assailing order dated 16.07.2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in ID Misc. Case No.292 of 1994 filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'), wherein the petitionerCorporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.39,000/- towards wages and Rs.1,000/- towards house rent to one Keshab Cha

(983) ARVIND KUMAR K S Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.12/2018 of Rajajinagar Police Station (Spl.CC.No.290/2018) pending on the file of LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366A, 344, 376 of IPC and under Sections 4, 6 and 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for short). I have heard Sri K.B.K.Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the peti

(984) SWAPNIL VASANT RAKSHE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 01-09-2020
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.78/2019 of Khade Bazar Sub-division, Camp Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 366(A) of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint given by one Smt.Padma Chandrakant Gurav of Vijayanagar Belagavi a case came to be registered in Crime No.78/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 376, 342, 366(A

(985) BALAPPA @ PINTU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (DHARWAD BENCH)] 01-09-2020
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.155/2019 of Chikkodi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1)(2)(1)(n) of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that one Magabul Husainsab Mulla has lodged a compliant on 22.11.2019 alleging that he his permanent resident of Jattipalam and his father is aged about 75 years and his sister victim girl is residing with his father in Bidrolli and he is staying at Ja

(986) SAGAR SITARAM MITRE Vs. BHANU PRATAP, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU SUB-ZONE, GOA [BOMBAY HIGH COURT (GOA BENCH)] 01-09-2020
The learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent. Facts: Petitioner Sagar Sitaram Mitre is the Accused No.2 in Spl. Crl. Case (NDPS) No.11 of 2016. He was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He allegedly possessed a narcotic drug-a prohibited substance. Sagar was granted bail with conditions. Later, he was found to have violated a condition. So the prosecution applied for the cancellation of bail. And, eventually, the tria

(987) M/S. MOLD-TEK PACKAGING LTD. Vs. S.D. CONTAINERS, INDORE [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-09-2020
Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2020 passed by the Commercial Court (District Court, Indore) whereby the civil suit has been transferred to Calcutta High Court under section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000, the applicant/plaintiff has filed the present writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under:- The applicant being a public limited company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 has filed the civil suit through it

(988) RAMCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 01-09-2020
Instant petition is preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India being crestfallen by order dated 18-10- 2004 (Annexure P/1) passed by Court of Collector (Urban Land Ceiling), District Gwalior whereby the proceedings of the case of the petitioners stand abated in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act 1999'). Precisely pleaded facts of the case are that an area admeasuring 5.956 hectare of land consisting of 14 survey

(989) KAPIL Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE AND ANOTHER [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 01-09-2020
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. Petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the letter dated 10.08.2020 whereby the Building Officer, Zone No.12 has informed them about the rejection of their application for compounding and also directed for removal of the extra construction within 3 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the aforesaid letter dated 10.08.2020 the petitioners have submitted fresh application under the Madh

(990) RAJKMAR GOYAL Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)] 01-09-2020
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:- "(i) That, the Respondent-Municipal Corporation may kindly be directed to make the payment to the petitioner against the work done by him in File Nos. 269/18x3/6, 270/18x3/6 & 271/18x3/6. (ii) That, the Respondent-Municipal Corporation be further directed to pay the interest to the petitioner for wrongly withholding the amount without any reason @ 14% per annum. (iii) Any other writ, order

(991) KAILASH NATH PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [ORISSA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
The petitioner, in this writ petition, calls in question the order dated 17.01.2009 (Annexure-5) passed by the SubCollector, Bhubaneswar (OP No.2) in Waste Land Appeal Case No.08 of 2008 thereby confirming the order dated 30.06.2003 (Annexure-4) passed by Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in WL Case No.850 of 1974 initiated under Section 3-B of Odisha Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'). Facts in nutshell relevant for proper adjudication of this case are that one Debara

(992) PRAFULLA CHANDRA SAMANTARAY Vs. SATYABHAMA PANDA [ORISSA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
This appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) has been filed by the present appellant in questioning the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1997 and 01.09.1997 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khurda in Money Appeal No.1 of 1997. That appeal filed by the present respondent challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1997 and 06.02.1997 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda in M.S. No.103 of 1995 has been allowe

(993) RAHUL BADHGUJJAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
Matter has been taken up through video conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.7.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby the appeal fled by the petitioner against the order dated 7.7.2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sangrur declining the bail application of the petitioner has been affirmed. Counsel for

(994) VISHAV PARTAP @ TILLU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
This is second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, for grant of bail pending trial in a criminal cross case arising from DDR No. 40 dated 23.04.2016, registered under section 307/ 323/ 324/ 148/ 149 IPC (section 302/ 325 and 201 IPC 1860 added later on), FIR No. 81 dated 21.04.2016, under section 307/ 323/ 324/ 447/ 511/ 148/ 149 IPC, at Police Station DeraBassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. First petition for grant of regular bail filed by the petitioner was

(995) PARAMPREET KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
Three Doctors have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents to give preference/reservation/additional marks to the doctors working in the COVID Care Centres while appointing Medical Officers (General) pursuant to the advertisement/recruitment notice (Annexure P-15), dated 04.08.2020. Although, in the writ petition, it has been claimed that the advertisement is dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure P

(996) SARABJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 04.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. 4th Commando Battalion, Phase-II, SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissing the petitioner from service under Clause (b) of the 2nd Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In the considered view of this Court, following question of law arise for determination:- "Whether in absence of sufficien

(997) MUSTKIM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
Fir No. 95 came to be registered on 28/08/2018 on intimation sent by Sub Inspector Sultan Singh to the SHO Police Station, Rohrai. The said Sub-Inspector had received secret information that some narcotic substance was being transported in a ten tyre truck bearing registration No. HR-58A-4662 from Rajasthan to Panipat and that in case a naka was setup, the intoxicating substance could be seized. A naka was set up and the aforementioned truck was spotted. The driver of the truck tried to turn it

(998) SANDEEP KUMAR CHAUBEY AND OTHERS Vs. SANT LONGOWAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) LONGOWAL [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for selection and appointment as Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering) for which recruitment is being held by the respondents. Some facts are required to be noticed. The petitioners herein (four in number) claim that they applied for the posts of Assistant Professor in Mechan

(999) CHARDIKALA INDANE AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 01-09-2020
The writ petitioners, who claim to be the new LPG Distributors, have filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the customers\LPG consumers to them from the existing distributors till they reach the refill sale viability level i.e. 50% of the ceiling in terms of the unified guidelines for the selection of LPG Distributorship 2016 and as per the circular dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure P2). In brief, the ca

(1000) T.S. LAKSHMANAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT [MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 01-09-2020
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 08.09.2011 in G.O.(IT).No.435 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (P.A4) Department, confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceeding No. N6/46481/2009, dated 29.07.2009 and further direct the 2nd respondent to pass order sanctioning pension to the petitioner for the service rendered by him in the office of the second respondent with effect from 04.07.1977 with all arrears. The se