Pridhi Chopra

On 08.09.2021, the Karnataka High Court had quashed an F.I.R on the grounds that the complainant was trying to give a civil case colour of a criminal case.

Excerpt On 12.07.2021, the Karnataka High Court had heard a Writ Petition in public interest regarding the cancellation of the SSLC examination in the state. The court observed that there was no arbitrariness in the decision to conduct the examination as it will only provide material evidence to the students

Excerpt On 6.07.2021, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka High court had partly allowed an intra-court Writ Appeal regarding the matter of electricity arrears with Rs. 17.36 crore. Brief Facts of the Case The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition against the power supply company for not providing the power connection,

On 10.06.2021, the Telangana High court had allowed the Criminal Appeal of the Sub-Inspector and Police Constable. It was against the previous order of the Trial Court relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On 02.06.2021, the Karnataka High Court had allowed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the amendment of Rule 31A(3) in the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules. 

On 24.05.2021, the Karnataka High Court had heard the plea of a 58 years-old BSF officer regarding his transfer order two years before his retirement via video-conferencing. 

On 24.05.2021, the Karnataka High Court had heard a Writ Petition of a 60 years-old Petitioner seeking to entitle the age of retirement up to 65 years as per the guidelines of AICTE.

On 24.05.2021, the Karnataka High Court had heard two Writ Petitions simultaneously praying to quash the order passed by the State Government of Karnataka on 20.06.2018 regarding the grant of quarrying lease for minor pink granite land.

On 6.05.2021, the Karnataka High Court had allowed an appeal of criminal nature in part relating to the subject of homicidal death.

On 6.05.2021, the Karnataka High Court had passed a judgment on a matter filed via Regular First Appeal against the order passed by a lower court regarding the recovery of money. The court exclaimed that the Courts could not encourage “sophistry” and “hairsplitting” while discussing the without prejudice rule.