Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
Prof. Ashish Wakhlu filed a contempt application alleging that the Vice‑Chancellor and members of the Executive Council of King George’s Medical University (KGMU) violated interim orders dated 20‑12‑2018 and 05‑12‑2019 by suspending and dismissing him. The High Court examined whether the respondents …
Shiv Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Assistant Sub‑Divisional Officer, II, Jaunpur to decide an application dated 17‑12‑2016 under Section 229(b) of the U.P. Zila Adalat & Land Revenue Act, 1950, which had remained pending since 2016. He had previously filed a similar …
Petitioner Sabhajeet Yadav filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The court had earlier issued an order on 22‑12‑2023 directing the petitioner to serve notice to private respondents. The petitioner’s counsel failed to comply with this direction, …
The appellant, Abhishek Gupta, was allotted a fair‑price shop licence after the licence of respondent No.1 was revoked for breach of conditions. The revocation and its affirmation were challenged by respondent No.1 in a writ petition under Art.226, where the appellant was not impleaded. The Single …
Madhav Prasad Sharma, a police constable, was absent without authorized leave for 101 days and was subsequently terminated from service. He appealed the termination, which was rejected by the DIG, and then obtained a writ order from the High Court Single Judge quashing the termination on the ground …
The complainants, Prabha Mathur & Anr., alleged that the respondents, Pramod Aggarwal & Ors., cheated them in a property sale and filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 1208. The trial court dismissed the complaint as a civil matter, a decision affirmed by the …
The Allahabad High Court held that Government Advocates and Standing Counsel could not represent State officials in contempt of court proceedings and that any litigation costs must be borne personally by the officials. The State appealed, arguing that it could authorize its law officers to appear …
