Uncategorized

In the case in point of an appeal issued by the learned tribunal for prevention of money laundering Act, 2002, the appeal is directed against a decision dated 1 January 2021 stating, through the assistant director of the office of the Department of Execution of Kolkata, alleged to have been maintained according to Article 26 of the Prevention of money laundering Act 2002.

Appellant is the mother of the respondents. Appellant alleges that two documents were caused to be executed in the names of her daughters (respondents) by perpetrating fraud and misrepresentation regarding the contents of the documents. According to the appellant, her daughters in cahoots with their husbands committed fraud and misrepresentation. And, therefore she approached the trial court with a suit by invoking the provisions under Order XXXIII of the Code for setting aside the two settlement deeds alleged to have been executed by her in the names of the respondents. Also as a consequential relief, sought a permanent prohibitory injunction decree.

A Petition was filed under Order 47 Rule (1) read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the Order passed on 04.03.2021.

A single-judge bench consisting of Honorable Justice Battu Devananda gave orders on the writ petition no. 9035 of 2021. The writ petition was filed against the demand notice no. 4352/Q/2009 issued by Respondent no. 3 (The deputy director of mines and geology) demanding to pay a sum of Rs. 83,12,130 towards the normal seigniorage fees, a penalty of Rs. 8,17,23,150, DMF of Rs. 24,93,639 and the merit of Rs. 1,66,243, for unauthorized excavation and transportation of road metal and building stone without obtaining the dispatch permits.

Case: D.P. Sinha, Ramesh Jha, S.K Jha, Rajesh Mohan and R.C. Mishra vs Coal India Limited W.P. (S) No. 235 of 2020 Introduction The Jharkhand High Court ruled that there were no estoppels to Fundamental Rights; hence the Petitioners were to...

Case: Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh and others v. Union of India and others  Excerpt The petitioners had filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 13.4.2018, to declare it unconstitutional. The order extends the Punjab...

This case discussed whether the arbitration clause in a contract between the state instrumentality and a private developer bars the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. 

This case discussed the way the Central Government approached the Supreme Court without taking into consideration the statutory limitation.

Kuruva Giddaiah alias ……petitioner             vs  The State of Andhra Pradesh The Joint Collector  The Station House Officer ……. respondents  Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi gave orders on the writ petition number 1691 of 2021 in the...

The Calcutta High Court on 27th January 2021, on the prayer of the petitioner under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with sections 401/482 Cr.P.C., ordered quashing of proceedings of complaint case no. 15 of 2018 filed...