(1)
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE…….Petitioner Vs.
CHAMAN GOEL …………Respondent D.D
19/01/2024
Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offenses – Fraudulent Input Tax Credit Claim – Involvement of Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel in a GST Input Tax Credit fraud of Rs.200 crores – Accused obtained anticipatory bail which was challenged by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) due to the serious nature of the economic offense and the attempt by Chaman Goel to leave the country...
(2)
MAKSOOD AHMAD ...Petitioner Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...Respondents D.D
19/01/2024
Allegations of Sexual Assault and Subsequent Marriage – FIR against Maksood Ahmad alleging sexual assault under Section 376 IPC – Later marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix post FIR registration and religious conversion of the prosecutrix - Scrutiny of the marriage's validity and motives behind conversion and marriage. [Paras 1-3, 5, 60-62, 64-70, 112]
Lega...
(3)
PINKY YADAV …PETITIONER Vs.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR …RESPONDENT(S) D.D
19/01/2024
Service Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition – Recruitment Process of Central/Delhi Government – Jurisdiction under Article 226 barred by Section 14 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1965 – Petition not maintainable in High Court .
Petitioner's Circumstances – Cleared Tier-I and Tier-II examinations – Missed deadline for renotified examination following Supreme...
(4)
SAPNA PAUL … Petitioner Vs.
ROHIN PAUL … Respondent D.D
19/01/2024
Maintenance and Domestic Violence – Wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of DV Act against Husband alleging domestic violence – Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/month and Rs.5,00,000 compensation – Appellate Court set aside this, remanding the case back to the Trial Court for re-trial without specific findings on key issues – High Court found this approach ...
(5)
KHUSHAL SINGH @GANGU ..... Petitioner Vs.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent D.D
19/01/2024
Anticipatory Bail Application - Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 486/2023 for offences under Sections 354/ 354A/ 354D/509 IPC and Sections 8/12 of POCSO Act - Alleged inappropriate gestures and physical assault by the petitioner towards a minor victim - Petitioner’s contention of false implication and evidence of absence from the crime scene [Paras 1, 2,...
(6)
CHINTAN KANJIBHAI KALATHIYA (CHINTANBHAI KANJIBHAI @ KANUBHAI GADHALI) Vs.
STATE OF GUJARAT D.D
19/01/2024
Quashing of FIR – Section 306 IPC – Abetment of Suicide - Application under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR alleging abetment of suicide – FIR lodged by deceased's wife against applicant for harassment and pressurizing deceased, leading to his suicide – Allegations in FIR constituting cognizable offence under Section 306 IPC. [Paras 1, 2, 12]
...
(7)
Menaka ... Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.
The State and Others ... Respondents D.D
19/01/2024
Criminal Law - Supardari - Factual Background and Claims – Petitioner Menaka, owner of “Sarathy Krishnan” business, challenged the Magistrate's return docket order concerning the seizure of oil from the petitioner's factory – Oil alleged to be non-edible and used for lamp oil, conflicting with the second respondent's claim of it being edible oil – Seizure ...
(8)
LALIT MOHAN MEHTA AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents D.D
19/01/2024
Quashing of Summoning Order - Non-Executive Independent Directors - The petitioners, being Non-Executive Independent Directors of HDIL, challenged the summoning orders issued against them in relation to dishonoured cheques. The court observed the necessity of proving the day-to-day involvement of these directors in the company's affairs for holding them liable under Section 138 of the NI Act. ...
(9)
R. KRISHNAMURTHY AND CO. ..... Petitioners Vs.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents D.D
19/01/2024
Debarment from Tenders – Judicial Review – Petitioner challenged the order debarring it from participating in any MCD tenders for five years – High Court examined whether the order was arbitrary, lacking reasons, or shockingly disproportionate – Court found the order was based on failure to complete work within stipulated time, resulting in public inconvenience [Paras 1-17]...