Brahamdeep Kaur

The Court ordered the formation of a three-member Pandemic Public Grievance Committee in every district of Uttar Pradesh.

The Appellant filed the present Intra Court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act impugning the judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him. The Court, however, found no merit in the present petition and hence, dismissed the same. Background The Appellant

The present anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioner in Case Crime No. 1906 of 2020 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 406 IPC. The Bail application was allowed by the Court on account of apprehension of his death due to the ongoing pandemic.

In the present PIL, the question was put on the preparedness of the Government to deal with the current surge of the pandemic in the face of the lacking public health infrastructure to meet the requirement. The Court, after considering the whole matter, directed the authorities to take remedial measures as soon as possible.

In the present case, two sets of appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of India challenging the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court regarding the matter of fee during the current pandemic time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, upheld the decision of the High Court and rejected the current petition being devoid of merit

In the present case, the respondents/review petitioners filed a review petition for the impugned judgement dated 10th April 2019, which directed for the payment of RMA to all the personnel of CRPF up to the rank of Commandant. The Court allowed the review petition saying that relief cannot be granted to those who didn’t petition before the Court.

Excerpt The appellants filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) under Clause 10 of the letters patent and sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The Court, however, didn’t find any reason to interfere with the

In the present case, the Petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of partition and possession. In addition, an application for interim relief against the Respondents was filed in respect to land that was claimed to be joint and unpartitioned property. The Court allowed the petition and directed

The present petition under Section 96 CPC was directed against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge Pali, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff was decreed for possession and mesne profit. The same was, however, dismissed by the Court.