KARNATAKA HC AWARDS MONETARY RELIEF FOR A PERSON SUFFERING IRRESVERISABLE MOTOR ACCIDENTAL LOSS
In the matter of Sri Krishnegowda vs M/S Royal Sundaram Allianz … on 22 November, 2022(M.F.A.NO.668/2014 (MV-I)) presided by THE HON’BL
I DO NOT FIND ANY IMPEDIMENT FOR ADMITTING PETITIONER ON BAIL. FURTHER, THE APPREHENSIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED HCGP CAN BE METED OUT BY IMPOSING CERTAIN CONDITIONS SAYS KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Vishnu P @ Vishnu vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9859 of 2022) presided by THE HON’BLE
THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED ACCIDENT AND THE POLICE HAVE INVESTIGATED THE MATTER AND FILED THE CHARGE- SHEET AGAINST THE OFFENDING VEHICLE AND THE SAME IS NOT QUESTIONED SAYS KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of R Nagaraj vs G Ananda on 22 November, 2022 (M.F.A.No.6357/2014 (MV-I) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH state
I DO NOT FIND ANY IMPEDIMENT FOR ADMITTING THE PETITIONER ON BAIL AS THE OFFENCES ALLEGED ARE NOT PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH OR LIFE OF IMPRISONMENT AND ARE TRIABLE BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE
In the matter Sri B D Rameshkumar vs State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022(Criminal petition no.9555 of 2022) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. J
The anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the offence. Being an extraordinary remedy, it should be restored to only in a special case: The Uttarakhand high court
The Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 6th June 2022 in the case Rahul vishnoi v. state of Uttarakhand and others (SECOND ANTICIPATORY BA
Writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued, where the detention is authorised by the order of a Court of competent jurisdiction: The Uttarakhand High court
the Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 19th April 2021 in the case Sharukh v. state of Uttarakhand and others (HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.
Acts of constitutional functionaries, and persons holding high offices, which are tainted by nepotism, jobbery, or self- aggrandizement at the cost of the public exchequer, (when millions of Indian citizens hardly have adequate means of survival, and find it extremely difficult to eke out their livelihood each day), should not be disregarded. Legislative support, to such acts of theirs, violates the doctrine of equality laid down in Article 14 and must, unhesitatingly, be declared void and unenforceable: The Uttarakhand High Court
the Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 9th June 2020 in the case Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttarakhand and othe
In defining the scope of the rule against bias and its content, at least three requirements of public law are in play: The first seeks accuracy in public decision- making, the second seeks the absence of prejudice or partiality on the part of the decision-maker. An accurate decision is more likely to be achieved by a decision: The Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 9th January 2020 in the case Smt. Rashmi Nautiyal Vs. Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commis
IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE IRRETRIEVABLE BREAK DOWN OF THE MARRIAGE AND IN ORDER TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES TO REDRESS THEIR REMEDY BY WAY OF CONCILIATION OR MEDIATION, I AM INCLINED TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS. OTHER APPREHENSIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER CAN BE METED OUT BY IMPOSING CERTAIN CONDITIONS SAYS: KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Thejas Kumar Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9289 OF 2022) presided by THE HON’BLE M
VICTIM OF UNDERAGE MARRIAGE GIVES AFFADVIT STATING SHE DOENST HAVE PROBLEM ON THE ACVISED HER FUTURE HUSBAND TO BE ON BAIL: KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Anjesh @ Boya Anjesh vs The Sate Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9122/2022) presided by The Hon’ble M
