Geek Upd8 - Law Reporter

Latest Post

Sanjay Mishra Versus Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another on 24 February, 2009


Before :- A.S. Oka, J.
Criminal Application No. 4694 of 2008. D/d. 24.02.2009.

Sanjay Mishra - Applicant
Ms. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and another - Respondents

For the Applicant :- Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Shailesh Kabtharia, Advocates.
For the State :- Ms. A.T. Jhaveri, A.P.P.
Bombay High Court Judgments

A.S. Oka, J. - The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant were heard in support of this application under sub-section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The applicant is the complainant. The applicant filed a complaint against the 1st respondent alleging commission of offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

Delhi High Court, Delhi Judgments

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707648


Before :- Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Bail Application No. 4308 of 2006. D/d. 11.12.2006.

Pawan Kumar Gupta - Petitioner
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Haneef Mohammad, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State :- Mr. V.K. Malik, Advocate.
For the Complainant :- Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocate.

Cases Referred :

Jagbir Singh v. State, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 289 : 2001(57) DRJ 768.
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 377 (SC) : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674.


Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral) - This is an application for anticipatory bail. In this case, initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 147/148/149/308/506/34 IPC. The petitioner was named in the FIR. He was, accordingly, taken into custody on 22.10.2006 and after remaining in custody for over a week, was released on bail on 01.11.2006. Subsequently, the injured (Hetram) passed away on 04.11.2006 and the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The petitioner now apprehends arrest in respect of the newly added Section 302 and has, therefore, moved this application for anticipatory bail. It was, first of all, contended by the learned counsel for the State that this application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable because the petitioner was arrested in the same FIR and regular bail had been granted to him on 01.11.2006. According to the learned counsel for the State, in such a situation, there was no question of entertaining an application for anticipatory bail.

Bombay High Court Judgments

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707647


Before :- Roshan Dalvi, J.
Notice Motion No. 8 of 2010. D/d. 28.1.2011.

Havovi Kersi Sethna - Plaintiff
Kersi Gustad Sethna - Defendant

For the Plaintiff :- Narayan Suvarna i/by Ansuya Dutt, Advocates.
For the Defendant :- Taubon F. Irani, Advocate.

Roshan Dalvi, J. - Parties are wife and husband. The Petition for divorce between the parties and other ancillary reliefs is pending trial. The wife, who is the Petitioner, is under cross-examination. The husband relies upon certain handwritten diaries of the wife as well as Compact Disk (CD) on which conversation between the wife and the husband has been recorded by the husband on certain dates. The husband has produced the transcript of the said conversation. The husband has 2 applied for verification of the handwriting of his wife in the diaries and the voice of the wife in the taped conversation on the CDs. The wife admits the handwriting in her diaries. That can be produced in evidence. Hence the husband does not press the relief in that behalf. Aside from the diary, there is one line written by the wife on a certain menu of her catering service which is also admitted by the wife.

Hon'ble eCommittee, Supreme Court of India have directed the High Courts to further order the District & Taluka Courts to build good database of registered email id's of advocates and litigants before 25-10-2017 and enter the same in CIS, so that parties and advocates can get regular updates of their cases on their registered email addresses.

                Besides updates on case updates on case status, lawyers and litigants can get a copy of cause list, copy of judgment and order on their registered mail address through this mailing service.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707646


Before :- K.S. Garewal, J.
Criminal Revision No. 1231 of 2001. D/d. 29.1.2002.

Bharpur Singh - Petitioner
Balwinder Singh - Respondent

For the Petitioners :- Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate.

K.S. Garewal, J. - Bharpur Singh and Jeon Singh have filed this revision petition to challenge the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated March 16, 2001 whereby the revision petition of Balwinder Singh was allowed, the order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class dismissing Balwinder Singh's application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code was set aside and the two petitioners were directed to be summoned to stand trial.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments
 GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707644


Before:- Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 1688-SB of 2004. D/d. 26.5.2017.

Gannu and another - Appellants
State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Ms. Mannat Anand, Advocate/Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent :- Mehardeep Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

Jitendra Chauhan, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 20.07.2004, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), whereby, they have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of L1,00,000/- each along with default clause.

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#} {twitter#} {google-plus#} {pinterest#} {youtube#}

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget