Digi - Legal Insights
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Cheque dishonour
complaint quashed as accused had no control over corporate debtors accounts
during insolvency resolution.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Proceedings quashed as
vicarious liability of company directors was not established and denial of
report rebuttal was prejudicial.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Allegations under POCSO
and IT Act against school staff found vague, with no direct evidence or CCTV
support; FIR quashed.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
FIR quashed due to
prolonged delay in trial, absence of accuseds role in core offence, and gross
delay since investigation stage.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention under MPDA
Act quashed due to lack of public order element and unreasonable delay in
approval.
ARBITRATION
Details
Zanmai has to regain control over its users' assets and provide assurance of their security thus, no reason to make an intervention, disturbing interim arrangement propounded by Arbitral Tribunal.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention order
invalidated due to delay in approval and failure to provide vernacular
translation of key documents.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention order set
aside due to contradictory grounds and denial of fair opportunity for
representation.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention under MPDA
quashed due to contradictory stand and malafide intention of sponsoring
authority.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention under MPDA
quashed due to non-supply of bail order and lack of proper material before
detaining authority.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention set aside as
no cogent evidence existed to justify categorizing petitioner as dangerous
person; ordinary criminal law was sufficient.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention quashed as
there was no material to categorize petitioner as dangerous person or
bootlegger, and alleged acts only indicated law and order issue.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention order set
aside as solitary incident and in-camera statements failed to show disturbance
to public order warranting application of MPDA Act.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention order set
aside as absence of reference to subjective satisfaction and supporting
documents deprived petitioner of effective representation.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Detention upheld as
externment did not bar detention and live link existed between offences and
necessity of preventive action.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Quashed as authority
relied on stale offences and failed to demonstrate subjective satisfaction.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Upheld as detention
proposal, approval, and execution were timely and past offences were
sufficiently proximate.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Quashed due to
unexplained delay in proposal and issuance, indicating lack of urgency or
necessity for detention.
SERVICE LAW
Details
Tribunals decision to delay review is unjustified and stifles legitimate claim of Respondent no.1 but Court is not inclined to interfere with order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution.
CRIMINAL LAW
Details
Denied as petitioner
had not completed the minimum sentence required under guidelines dated
15-3-2010.