Section 173 of CrPC does not prescribe piecemeal investigation: Gauhati High Court
Gauhati High Court on 27th October 2022 said that Sec 173 of the CrPC does not prescribe piecemeal investigation & filing of incomplete charge
SEATS RESERVED FOR DISABILITY QUOTA NOT GIVEN KARNATAKA HC GRANTS JUSTICE BY GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO APPEAR FOR ROUNDS
In the matter of Sri Nandeesh C M vs National Medical Commission on 25 November, 2022(W.P.No.22910/2022 (EDN-MED-ADM) observed by The hon’ble jud
ACCUSED FLATLY DENIED TO COMPLY THE ORDER OF THIS COURT AND AS SUCH, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO HOLD THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT GUILTY FOR AN ACT OF WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT AND COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT SYAS: KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Sri A N Ravi Kumar vs Sri B Manjunath on 24 November, 2022(C. C. C. NO. 663 OF 2022 (CIVIL)) presided by THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Chi
“THERE IS NO INJUSTICE DONE TO THE PETITIONERS. THEY HAVE BEEN REGISTERED AS TENANTS UNDER SECTION 9A OF THE ACT. THEIR POSSESSION CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT. THEY WILL VIRTUALLY BECOME THE OWNERS BY REASON OF THE SAID REGISTRATION. THIS IS SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE PETITION.” SAYS : KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Sri. B.C. Ravindra vs The Chairman Land Tribunal on 24 November, 2022(WRIT PETITION NO.59736 OF 2014(LR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.2744
MDMA PEDDELER RELEASED ON BAIL BY KARNATAKA HC
IN the matter of Shiek Mohammed Arbaz vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10149/2022) proceeded by The hon’ble justic
SEATS RESERVED FOR DISABILITY QUOTA NOT GIVEN KARNATAKA HC GRANTS JUSTICE BY GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO APPEAR FOR ROUNDS
In the matter of Sri Nandeesh C M vs National Medical Commission on 25 November, 2022(W.P.No.22910/2022 (EDN-MED-ADM) observed by The hon’ble jud
This Court is of the considered view at this stage that the first in and first out rule could not have been invoked for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.: Calcutta High Court
The above was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Nitesh Kharga v. State of West Bengal and Ors. WPO/2799/2022, which was presided ove
It appears from the stand of the father of the petitioner that he took the benefit of two dates of birth to obtain two separate documents, for the reason best known to him: Calcutta High Court
The above-mentioned was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case Anirban @ Anirban Basu v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. WPO/3056/202
Considering all aspects, the prayer for temporary injunction being GA No. 2 of 2022 is disposed of: Calcutta High Court
The above was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case of In the Goods of Shri Dhirendra Mohan Ojha v. Mukti Ojha and Ors. IA NO. GA/2/2022, w
I am of the opinion that prayer and contention of the application is nothing to prejudice the judgment-debtor in any manner: Calcutta High Court
The above-mentioned was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case Star Vincom Pvt. Ltd v. K.L Pvt Ltd, IA No. GA/1/2022 before Honourable Justi
