The High Court of Uttarakhand decided on the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, 2005. It took into consideration the delegation of powers under the Act. Brief Facts of the Case The petitions filed before the Court raised inquiries on the use of public funds. These petitions also questioned the
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India. The action was in response to a plea against a notification issued by RBI. Brief Facts of the Case The Petitioner runs an Optical Shop by the name of “Prime Opticals” in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India. It was in response to a plea by the petitioner. The plea was against a notification issued by RBI. Brief facts The Petitioner runs an Optical Shop by the name of “Prime Opticals” in Agra,
There is a plea filed in the Supreme Court of India requesting that the High Court of Bombay be renamed as the High Court of Maharashtra. The petitioner has invoked the civil original writ jurisdiction of the court. Factual Background The petition is filed by VP Patil. He states that
The present case (Bina Garg and Anr. vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors.) is an Appeal filed against a 2008 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. Brief Facts of the Case The son of the claimants, Pranav Vishal Garg, had died in an accident which took place on 14.09.2004.
In the case of Japinder Singh v. Union of India, Japinder Singh filed a writ petition in the Uttarakhand High Court. The petition was against private unaided schools who are demanding tuition fees. Irrespective of the fact of providing online classes of adequate quality. Petitioner’s submission On 2 May 2020,
The current COVID- 19 situation is putting healthcare systems all over the world to test as the number of cases reported is increasing day by day. In understanding the various measures taken by the government in containing the pandemic, it becomes essential to analyze the legal framework and the statutory
In the case of Sanpreet Singh Ajmani vs. Union of India and others the Uttarakhand High Court responded to public interest litigation filed by a practising advocate of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution espousing public cause for the benefit of healthcare workers involved in the ongoing
The Uttarakhand High Court on the 20th of April, 2020 disposed of a writ petition seeking the repatriation of Nepali citizens through diplomatic channels and stated that no direction can be issued to the Central Government to expedite the repatriation as such issuance of direction would amount to the encroachment
Two writ petitions were filed in the Uttarakhand High Court seeking installation of proper medical equipment in hospitals which had patients battling the COVID- 19 pandemics. The petition also demanded the protection of the doctors, nurses and the paramedics who were in the frontline of this battle. In its Match
Subscribe to our newsletter and receive a curated selection of legal updates directly to your inbox.
