High Court Archives

A writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioners directing the respondents to hand over custody of the girl child to them.

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.

The acquittal ordered by the trial court in the murder case of Harish V. Talke has no error according to the Bombay High Court.

Excerpt On 23/03/2021, the Madras High Court decided the case on providing more examination centres and seats in the State for (NEET-PG 2021).  Facts of

Excerpt The Petitioner has filed the writ petition, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to act in accordance with and not in contravention

Excerpt The Madras High Court, on 23/03/2021, allowed an Original Criminal Petition. It challenged to call entire records relating to proceedings S.C.No.25 of 2017, under

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

Excerpt  A single-judge bench consisting of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao gave orders on the writ petition no. 5874 of 2021 in Sri. Mandapati Ramalingeswara Rao

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.

A single-judge bench consisting of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao gave orders on the writ petition no. 5874 of 2021 in Sri. Mandapati Ramalingeswara Rao vs state of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction against the actions of Respondent No. 3 and 4 in filing O.A. No. 502 of 2020 before the A.P. endowment tribunal under section 83 of Endowment Act, 1987 as violative and contrary to the judgment of the High Court.