Khushi Chopra

The Court had observed that the Respondent Authority in the present case had issued a communication to the Petitioner, rejecting correction of her name on Birth Certificate. Therefore, the Court relied upon Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, quashing Respondent’s communication and directing to make an

Excerpt The Court directed that in light of the fact that the Petitioner and his family members were prosecuted, so no one in the family could look after the child, so it would be in the best interest of the child that his custody remained with his maternal grandparents. Background

Excerpt The Court directed that in light of the fact that the applicant used to earn sufficient income, henceforth, the impugned order granting maintenance to respondent-wife was not erroneous. Background The Applicant had filed the present petition to challenge the legality, propriety, and correctness of an order dated 21.5.2018 passed

Excerpt  A petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order dated 01.10.2018, which was passed by the Learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajpipla, Narmada below Exh.88 in Regular Civil Suit no. 157 of 2007, wherein, the learned Trial Judge had been pleased to reject the

Excerpt The Court had quashed and set aside the refusal of furlough leave due to the applicant-convict and had directed the concerned authority to re-consider the grant of furlough in accordance with the concerned law.  Background The applicant had before the concerned authority, preferred an application for furlough leave which

The Court said that it wasn’t pleased to condone a delay of 3709 days in filing the said application, based on the previous judgments of the Court. Henceforth, the petition was dismissed. Background The present writ petition was preferred by the original petitioner-Patel Kashibhai Tarshibhai, who had expired on 25.5.2008.

During the proceedings, the Court made observations that the petitioners were willing to pay the outstanding amount to the Respondent Bank in installment. Henceforth, the Court ordered that the e-auction sale of the secured assets of the petitioners be set aside.

The Court directed because Tribunal had committed an error in concluding that the insurance company had not proved that the driver of the motorcycle did not have a valid license, which it had proved, thus partly allowing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Excerpt  The Court had observed that the respondent in the present case had issued a communication to the petitioner, rejecting to change the name on the Birth Certificate. Hence, the Court relied upon Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and quashed the respondent’s communication, and directed

The Court had observed that the respondent in the present case had issued a communication to the petitioner, rejecting to change the name on the Birth Certificate. Hence, the Court relied upon Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and quashed the respondent’s communication, and directed to carry out an inquiry and consider the documentary evidence and later give a final decision.