Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The High Court was of the view that the petition was yet another attempt by a disgruntled candidate who had lost in elections against their rival.
“The Gazette notification dated 07-05-2015 and proceedings 09-06-2016, are not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and do not infringe the petitioner’s fundamental to carry on his business in a particular District.”
The individual against whom the allegations are made, ought to be a ‘Public Servant’ whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government to entitle him to the protection under section 197 CrPC and not to every public servant.
The Competent Authority’s power to act on complaints is not limited to complaints made by the Association or a majority of its members, it also extends to cases where the Association or its top management might be involved in the alleged wrongdoings
by Abhiraj Gandhi† and Nirali Shah††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 34
Rajasthan High Court: In a case of an illegal termination of a Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank being pending for
Delhi High Court: Jasmeet Singh, J. did not interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by Delhi Police to a restaurant
Armed Forces Tribunal: Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava (Chairperson) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve (Member) A, allowed the application
Allahabad High Court: Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. while issuing the writ of mandamus commanded the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner and
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Krishna Murari, C.J and Arun Palli, J. disposed of the writ petition after
Himachal Pradesh High Court: The instant petition was related to Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 entertained by Jyotsna Rewal
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Rajan Gupta, J. dismissed the petition on the ground that order taken by the State Government cannot
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. disposed of a petition considering the long litigation between the parties and gave directions
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. and N.S. Dhanik, J. contemplated a writ petition filed in pursuant to
“Without adherence to sustainable development, life of future generations will be in jeopardy” Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench comprising of CJ
Karnataka High Court: While considering the petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the High Court by petitioners who were aggrieved
Supreme Court: Explaining the Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Bench of Ranjan Gogoi and P.C. Pant, JJ
Supreme Court: Interpreting the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (PMP Act),