High Court Archives

The petitioners (accused) approached the Hon’ble High Court, by way of criminal review case under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC.

The complaint started with discontent towards the copy of the permission letter received by which the demolition was granted for the building on the address by the complainant. As the reply was not received, the petitioner filed the petition. Later, the commission decided to reopen every case related to RTI Act. 

Introduction The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre and the State Government on concerns relating to the status of internally

The Petition was filed by M/s IMZ Corporate Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter IMZ) under Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter AC Act) seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

The Aurangabad high court held that it was the Centre’s liability to replace faulty ventilators with new and functional ventilators as repaired ventilators might lead to loss of lives.

One of the accused in the Moti Nagar Drug Smuggling case registered at PS Crime Branch – Gulbabu, applied for regular Bail under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter NDPS Act).

Here, in Disqualification Case no 14, 2019, the current writ petition was submitted in the challenge of the Speaker’s Orders on 18.06.2020 which eliminated the writ petitioner from the membership of the Manipur Legislative Assembly regarding Para 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India.

The candidates, who were petitioners nos. 1 to 3 in the writ appeal for example W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2013 recorded by the contrary party Purna Chandra Chand, have looked for review petition of the request dated 24.04.2013 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court while discarding the writ appeal.

Here, the case is about whether The Army Public School is an unaided private institution that is controllable to the Court‘s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

This writ petition is filed to declare the impugned order of stop production passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board vide Order as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Y Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri V.Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and with their consent; this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The case was heard and decided by Hon’ble Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi and Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Ramesh.