There are no direct allegations against Appellant in complaint, which is essential for applying Section 141 of Act that requires accused to be in charge of and responsible for companys business conduct hence, summoning order in connection with complaint registered of alleged offences, quashed.
Petitioners were incorrectly promoted over Respondents Nos. 5 to 8, who are senior and eligible for posts of Naib Tahsildar despite petitioners having worked in these posts for over three years, hence, concerned competent Authority directed to appoint respondents Nos. 5 to 8 within two weeks, warning of potential contempt proceedings for noncompliance.
Permission granted to Petitioner for diversion of 3.3561 ha. of forestland out of which 1.9656 ha. of mangrove forest land in favour of MSETCL for cutting of 847 mangroves trees within construction zone for project forming part of village Mankode, for use of non-forest purpose.
Petitioner is accused of attempting to defraud Court by obtaining a stay order through false claims hence; he must demonstrate compliance with rules to seek relief under Article 226 of Constitution, which he has not done.
Initial basis for declaring building dangerous and ordering demolition is no longer valid and related communications cannot be upheld hence, Respondent No.2 is prohibited from threatening disconnection of water or electricity based on certain communications.
Termination of petitioners services from 1 September 2012 is declared illegal and set aside directing Respondents to reinstate petitioner as Shikshan Sevak/Assistant Teacher within eight weeks with continuity of service, including seniority and pension benefits, but will not receive back wages due to lack of evidence of unemployment during proceedings.
Extensions granted were unjustifiable and violated procedural mandates and as a result, court asserted its jurisdiction to challenge validity of development plan, stressing that adherence to law is a fundamental duty of executive.
Cause of death was established as septicaemia resulting from burns hence, impugned order of conviction needs to be upheld.
Petitioners bail cancelled for failing to meet conditions and ordered forfeiture of Rs. 50 crores deposited, directing Rs. 5 crores to National Legal Services Authority and remainder to IRP for IBC proceedings, with immediate compliance mandated by Registrar (Judicial).
Cognizance was taken in year 2001, that is, much before notification therefore, benefit of Section 197 is not available to Appellants.
For a charge under Section 306 IPC to be sustained, there must be a positive act of instigation or incitement with clear mens rea, having proximate nexus to the act of suicide.
High Court erred in granting protection from arrest, failing to adequately justify its decision and not reflecting an appropriate application of legal principles relevant to case.
Offences under PC Act can be investigated by various agencies, including State, Central, or police agencies, as per Section 17, which requires police officers to have a specific rank.
Orders by Special Court are set aside and Appellate Tribunals decision on Section 26 should also be restored for merits evaluation, as order was not justly considered.
High Court should not have entertained writ petition and if it did, defacto complainant should have been heard.
When Petitioners seek to quash FIR, High Court must assess cases merits rather than dismiss it as infructuous.
Investigative officer is responsible for conducting proper investigation and filing report in accordance with Section 173 of CrPC/Section 193 of BNSS and it warns against high court intervention that could unfairly impose timelines on trials, potentially compromising concept of fair trial.
Order issued by High Court related to bail application is unsustainable in law and has resulted in travesty of justice.
Repeated registration of FIRs aimed to maintain Petitioner No.1 in custody hence, Petitioner No.1 is granted immediate bail due to previously granted anticipatory bail.
Even if allegations in FIR are accepted as true, they do not constitute an offence under SC/ST Act and regarding IPC offences, allegations lack credibility and general nature of claims does not establish Appellants participation in alleged crime hence, criminal prosecution against Appellant is quashed.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer