SC order about Muslim vendors dated - December 17, 2021.pdf
•
0 likes•695 views
The Supreme Court of India was hearing two contempt petitions related to orders staying a High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment and directing that no tenants or shop holders be excluded from participating in an auction or being granted leases for a shopping complex based on their religion. The Court disposed of the contempt petitions and clarified that the Supreme Court's order takes precedence over any High Court order. None of the tenants or shop holders are to be excluded from the auction or leases for the shopping complex based on their religion.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
![2
Court. It needs no clarification that the order of this Court would have
precedence notwithstanding anything contained in any order of the High Court.
4 In the face of the above orders, it is impermissible for the respondent –
contemnors to either exclude the license holders from participating in the
auction or from being granted leases, including in the shopping complex
constructed by the State, on the ground of their religion.
5 In the circumstances, in order to enable the respondent-contemnors to obviate
any coercive steps being taken against them for breach of the order of this
Court, we direct that none of the tenants/shop holders shall be excluded from
participating in the auction or from the grant of leases including in the shopping
complex on the ground of their religion.
6 The Contempt Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
7 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
…………...…...….......………………........J.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.
[A S Bopanna]
New Delhi;
December 17, 2021
-S-]()
Recommended
AP HC Order.pdf
This document is a judgment from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding four writ petitions filed challenging the validity of an order issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order amended rules related to leasing and licensing of shops and premises belonging to Hindu religious institutions. The petitioners argued the order discriminated against non-Hindus and violated their fundamental rights. The court examined the arguments and referred to several previous cases in its judgment.
Gulfisha bail order
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
Gauhati hc
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
Gauhati hc order july 20
1) The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring her a foreigner.
2) The Court remanded the case back to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration, noting communication issues with the petitioner's counsel resulted in her missing hearings.
3) The Court will allow the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal again to prove her citizenship, as this is an important right that should be decided on the merits rather than by default.
4) The impugned Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner is set aside, and she must appear before the Tribunal within one month to prove she is an Indian citizen.
Sc order denying yogeshraj bail
1) The Supreme Court of India heard petitions related to the criminal case against individuals accused of lynching a police officer who was investigating cow slaughter.
2) One of the accused, Lokendra, was already in custody while another accused, Yogeshraj, had been released on bail.
3) The Court stayed the order granting bail to Yogeshraj and directed him to surrender within seven days, considering the serious nature of the case where a police officer was lynched under the pretext of investigating cow slaughter.
4) The Court sought a report from the trial court on how much time was needed to frame charges and record testimonies of independent witnesses, as charges had not yet been framed in
Rana Ayyub vs UOI filing copy.pdf
The document is a writ petition filed by Rana Ayyub in the High Court of Delhi challenging the decision of immigration authorities at the airport to prevent her from traveling abroad based on instructions from the Enforcement Directorate. The petition states that Rana Ayyub is an investigative journalist who was scheduled to travel to London and Italy to attend journalism events but was detained at the airport and not allowed to travel. The petition alleges that the action of preventing her travel is arbitrary, illegal and violates her fundamental rights. It seeks orders allowing her to travel abroad and quashing any look out notice or instruction barring her travel.
Allahabad hc order ashish kumar bail
The applicant, Ashish Kumar, applied for bail in a case under Section 124-A IPC regarding criminal charges. He had previously been granted bail for other offenses related to the same incident. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing he may interfere with evidence or commit other crimes. Considering Article 21 of the Indian Constitution regarding personal liberty, the court granted bail with conditions, including that the applicant not tamper with evidence, cooperate with trial, and avoid further criminal acts or the bail will be cancelled.
Allahabad hc order yogeshraj bail
Yogeshraj applied for bail in Case Crime No. 583 of 2018 under Section 124-A IPC at the Police Station of Syana, District Bulandshahar. His counsel argued he is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity since the co-accused Ashish Kumar was granted bail in an identical case. The prosecution opposed bail but did not dispute the claim of parity. The court granted bail to Yogeshraj subject to conditions that he cannot tamper with evidence, must cooperate with trial proceedings, and cannot commit any further crimes.
Recommended
AP HC Order.pdf
This document is a judgment from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding four writ petitions filed challenging the validity of an order issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order amended rules related to leasing and licensing of shops and premises belonging to Hindu religious institutions. The petitioners argued the order discriminated against non-Hindus and violated their fundamental rights. The court examined the arguments and referred to several previous cases in its judgment.
Gulfisha bail order
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
Gauhati hc
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
Gauhati hc order july 20
1) The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring her a foreigner.
2) The Court remanded the case back to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration, noting communication issues with the petitioner's counsel resulted in her missing hearings.
3) The Court will allow the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal again to prove her citizenship, as this is an important right that should be decided on the merits rather than by default.
4) The impugned Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner is set aside, and she must appear before the Tribunal within one month to prove she is an Indian citizen.
Sc order denying yogeshraj bail
1) The Supreme Court of India heard petitions related to the criminal case against individuals accused of lynching a police officer who was investigating cow slaughter.
2) One of the accused, Lokendra, was already in custody while another accused, Yogeshraj, had been released on bail.
3) The Court stayed the order granting bail to Yogeshraj and directed him to surrender within seven days, considering the serious nature of the case where a police officer was lynched under the pretext of investigating cow slaughter.
4) The Court sought a report from the trial court on how much time was needed to frame charges and record testimonies of independent witnesses, as charges had not yet been framed in
Rana Ayyub vs UOI filing copy.pdf
The document is a writ petition filed by Rana Ayyub in the High Court of Delhi challenging the decision of immigration authorities at the airport to prevent her from traveling abroad based on instructions from the Enforcement Directorate. The petition states that Rana Ayyub is an investigative journalist who was scheduled to travel to London and Italy to attend journalism events but was detained at the airport and not allowed to travel. The petition alleges that the action of preventing her travel is arbitrary, illegal and violates her fundamental rights. It seeks orders allowing her to travel abroad and quashing any look out notice or instruction barring her travel.
Allahabad hc order ashish kumar bail
The applicant, Ashish Kumar, applied for bail in a case under Section 124-A IPC regarding criminal charges. He had previously been granted bail for other offenses related to the same incident. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing he may interfere with evidence or commit other crimes. Considering Article 21 of the Indian Constitution regarding personal liberty, the court granted bail with conditions, including that the applicant not tamper with evidence, cooperate with trial, and avoid further criminal acts or the bail will be cancelled.
Allahabad hc order yogeshraj bail
Yogeshraj applied for bail in Case Crime No. 583 of 2018 under Section 124-A IPC at the Police Station of Syana, District Bulandshahar. His counsel argued he is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity since the co-accused Ashish Kumar was granted bail in an identical case. The prosecution opposed bail but did not dispute the claim of parity. The court granted bail to Yogeshraj subject to conditions that he cannot tamper with evidence, must cooperate with trial proceedings, and cannot commit any further crimes.
Sc order sept 30
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Yash Pal Singh, whose son was killed in an alleged encounter by police officers in 2002. The court noted that the case has been pending since then, and the police officers involved have not been properly investigated or prosecuted despite court orders. The court criticized the laxity of the state in defending its police officers. It directed the state of Uttar Pradesh to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs as interim costs to the petitioner, as he has been denied justice for 19 years. The matter was listed for further hearing on October 20th.
Mp hc phc in prisons
The court considered an application for suspension of sentence from appellant Lalji Singh who was convicted of murder and other charges, and granted a further 90 day suspension of his sentence due to his heart ailment and the lack of proper medical facilities and transport in the jail. The court directed the state to improve primary healthcare in jails, including establishing on-site health centers, and to submit a report on current medical facilities, citing precedents requiring protection of prisoners' human rights.
November 2020 gulfisha order
1. The court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
Delhi sessions court umar khalid handcuffs order
This document summarizes the court proceedings regarding applications to produce two accused persons, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi, in handcuffs. The court notes replies from jail superintendents, the DCP of Special Cell, and the DCP of the 3rd Battalion that suggest the applications lack merit as the prison rules do not mention handcuffing prisoners. As the accused are not convicted criminals or gangsters, the applications appear to have been filed without proper consideration. However, given new COVID protocols, the accused are no longer being produced in person in court, making the applications unnecessary at this stage. The court therefore dismisses the applications as not required.
Maulana fazlul order
The applicant Maulana Fazlul Karim Qasimi was arrested in August 2021 for a Facebook post expressing the view that the Taliban in Afghanistan are not terrorists. The applicant's lawyer argued that the court had granted bail to someone in a similar case for expressing such an opinion. While reviewing the case diary, the court found nothing incriminating against the applicant beyond the Facebook post. Given the lack of other evidence, the court doubted if the post alone constituted a cognizable offense. Therefore, the court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond, finding further custody unnecessary in this case.
Guj hc pasa aug 25 order
The High Court of Gujarat quashed four detention orders issued by the District Magistrate of Amreli under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act against four petitioners for allegedly being "property grabbers". The Court found that the detaining authority erred in treating the petitioners' activities as prejudicial to public order, as it was a private property dispute. The Court also noted that the justification provided by the state for issuing the detention orders - that the petitioners would continue illegal activities with advocate help - was untenable. The rule was made absolute and the detention orders were quashed.
Madras hc anti caa cases quashed
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021
The petitioner challenged his detention order on the grounds that it did not mention his right to make a representation against the order to the District Magistrate who issued the order, violating his rights under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The court referred to previous judgments which held that not informing a detainee of their right to make a representation to the detaining authority infringes on their Article 22 rights and renders the detention illegal. As the respondent admitted the detention order did not contain this stipulation, and in line with previous judgments, the court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner be released.
13.12.2021 res judicata applicable in ft
The petitioner challenged a second proceeding initiated against her by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her a foreigner, despite an earlier tribunal opinion finding she was not a foreigner. The court allows the petition, setting aside the second opinion as violating the Supreme Court ruling that the principle of res judicata applies to Foreigners Tribunal proceedings. As the petitioner's identity was the same in both proceedings and the tribunal made no finding she was different than the earlier proceedee, the second proceeding against the same person cannot be sustained. The petitioner must be released if detained under the second, now set aside, opinion.
Bom hc nagpur july 29 order
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
Sc may 21 order
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
alimuddin ansari case SC
The Supreme Court of India was hearing a special leave petition filed by Mariyam Khatoon against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court that had granted relief to 10 of the 11 people convicted of a crime. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, noting that since most convicted people were granted relief, there was no reason to entertain the petition from the original complainant. The Court requested the High Court to expedite any pending appeals in the case and dispose them off within 6 months.
MArch-April 2022 bombay-hc-emergency-parole-413821.pdf
The document is a judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench regarding a contempt proceeding initiated against Anupkumar M. Kumre, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur. The court initiated contempt proceedings against Kumre for selectively applying a precedent regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole, refusing parole to 35 eligible prisoners while granting it to 6 ineligible ones. Additionally, Kumre was accused of making misleading statements in affidavits filed with the court regarding certain prisoners' eligibility for parole. Over the course of several hearings and affidavits filed, the court found contradictions in Kumre's statements and determined he had arbitrarily exercised his powers, warranting contempt proceedings.
Delh hc rakesh kumar v. vijayanta arya
The court found R-3, a police officer, guilty of contempt of court for arresting the petitioner without following proper legal procedures as outlined in a previous Supreme Court case. Specifically, R-3 failed to serve the required notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C. before arresting the petitioner. While R-3 apologized, the court did not accept the apology as it was not sincere and was only offered as a last resort. As a result, the court sentenced R-3 to one day in simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 2,000, and costs of Rs. 15,000 to be paid to the petitioner. However, the sentence will be kept in abeyance for two
Sc order freedom of rel act
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of George Mangalapilly challenging his prosecution under Sections 153(B)(1), 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act. The key witness in the case, Dharmendar Dohar, denied in his testimony that he was forcibly converted and said the appellant did not contact him. Given that the prosecution's entire case rested on this witness, and his testimony did not support the charges, the Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant.
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
Sc order uapa sep 9
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
Sc migrant labourers order 24 may-2021
The Supreme Court of India heard a suo moto writ petition regarding problems faced by migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted submissions from petitioners regarding inadequate distribution of dry rations, cooked food and cash transfers to migrant workers. States provided details of steps taken to help migrant workers, including transportation, food and registration processes.
The Court emphasized the need to complete registration of unorganized workers under new social security laws to help workers access welfare schemes. It directed the central government to file an affidavit with details on developing a national database for registration of all unorganized workers across states. The Court also stressed the need to effectively monitor welfare schemes to ensure benefits reach beneficiaries.
Sudha may 21 hc order
The petitioner, Maaysha Singh, filed a writ petition seeking bail for her mother, Sudha Bharadwaj, who was imprisoned. While the petitioner no longer pressed the request for bail on medical grounds, the court noted that prisoners have a right to their medical records under the constitution. The court ordered the prison authorities to provide all of Bharadwaj's medical records and test results upon request. The court also agreed that Bharadwaj should be allowed to make phone calls to approved family members after medical visits. The writ petition was then disposed of with these orders regarding access to medical information.
Sc order right to be represented 18 dec
The Supreme Court of India set aside the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that had affirmed the appellant's conviction. The Supreme Court found that the High Court disposed of the appellant's appeal in his absence and without legal representation, which violated his right to due process under the Indian Constitution. The case was restored to the High Court to be reheard, with directions that the appellant receive legal representation and for the matter to be heard expeditiously.
Sc covid bail order
The Supreme Court of India heard petitions related to interim bail orders granted to prisoners in Delhi due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court had previously modified interim bail orders on October 20th, 2020. The Supreme Court stayed parts of that High Court order and has now directed that 2318 prisoners granted interim bail by trial courts and 356 granted by the High Court must surrender within 15 days. The Court also directed the Amicus Curiae to submit a report on prison overcrowding within 4 weeks and for replies to be filed within 4 weeks thereafter. The matters will be heard again on April 26th, 2021.
Virendra vs state of up
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a criminal appeal pending in the High Court. The petitioner had been in jail for 21 years without remission while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court gave the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application in the pending criminal appeal before the High Court. The Court observed that if a bail application is filed, the High Court shall consider it forthwith. The Court expected the High Court to decide any bail application within one month of filing.
More Related Content
What's hot
Sc order sept 30
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Yash Pal Singh, whose son was killed in an alleged encounter by police officers in 2002. The court noted that the case has been pending since then, and the police officers involved have not been properly investigated or prosecuted despite court orders. The court criticized the laxity of the state in defending its police officers. It directed the state of Uttar Pradesh to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs as interim costs to the petitioner, as he has been denied justice for 19 years. The matter was listed for further hearing on October 20th.
Mp hc phc in prisons
The court considered an application for suspension of sentence from appellant Lalji Singh who was convicted of murder and other charges, and granted a further 90 day suspension of his sentence due to his heart ailment and the lack of proper medical facilities and transport in the jail. The court directed the state to improve primary healthcare in jails, including establishing on-site health centers, and to submit a report on current medical facilities, citing precedents requiring protection of prisoners' human rights.
November 2020 gulfisha order
1. The court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
Delhi sessions court umar khalid handcuffs order
This document summarizes the court proceedings regarding applications to produce two accused persons, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi, in handcuffs. The court notes replies from jail superintendents, the DCP of Special Cell, and the DCP of the 3rd Battalion that suggest the applications lack merit as the prison rules do not mention handcuffing prisoners. As the accused are not convicted criminals or gangsters, the applications appear to have been filed without proper consideration. However, given new COVID protocols, the accused are no longer being produced in person in court, making the applications unnecessary at this stage. The court therefore dismisses the applications as not required.
Maulana fazlul order
The applicant Maulana Fazlul Karim Qasimi was arrested in August 2021 for a Facebook post expressing the view that the Taliban in Afghanistan are not terrorists. The applicant's lawyer argued that the court had granted bail to someone in a similar case for expressing such an opinion. While reviewing the case diary, the court found nothing incriminating against the applicant beyond the Facebook post. Given the lack of other evidence, the court doubted if the post alone constituted a cognizable offense. Therefore, the court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond, finding further custody unnecessary in this case.
Guj hc pasa aug 25 order
The High Court of Gujarat quashed four detention orders issued by the District Magistrate of Amreli under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act against four petitioners for allegedly being "property grabbers". The Court found that the detaining authority erred in treating the petitioners' activities as prejudicial to public order, as it was a private property dispute. The Court also noted that the justification provided by the state for issuing the detention orders - that the petitioners would continue illegal activities with advocate help - was untenable. The rule was made absolute and the detention orders were quashed.
Madras hc anti caa cases quashed
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Mp hc wp 12166 2021_final_order_06-sep-2021
The petitioner challenged his detention order on the grounds that it did not mention his right to make a representation against the order to the District Magistrate who issued the order, violating his rights under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. The court referred to previous judgments which held that not informing a detainee of their right to make a representation to the detaining authority infringes on their Article 22 rights and renders the detention illegal. As the respondent admitted the detention order did not contain this stipulation, and in line with previous judgments, the court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner be released.
13.12.2021 res judicata applicable in ft
The petitioner challenged a second proceeding initiated against her by the Foreigners Tribunal declaring her a foreigner, despite an earlier tribunal opinion finding she was not a foreigner. The court allows the petition, setting aside the second opinion as violating the Supreme Court ruling that the principle of res judicata applies to Foreigners Tribunal proceedings. As the petitioner's identity was the same in both proceedings and the tribunal made no finding she was different than the earlier proceedee, the second proceeding against the same person cannot be sustained. The petitioner must be released if detained under the second, now set aside, opinion.
Bom hc nagpur july 29 order
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
Sc may 21 order
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
alimuddin ansari case SC
The Supreme Court of India was hearing a special leave petition filed by Mariyam Khatoon against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court that had granted relief to 10 of the 11 people convicted of a crime. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, noting that since most convicted people were granted relief, there was no reason to entertain the petition from the original complainant. The Court requested the High Court to expedite any pending appeals in the case and dispose them off within 6 months.
MArch-April 2022 bombay-hc-emergency-parole-413821.pdf
The document is a judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench regarding a contempt proceeding initiated against Anupkumar M. Kumre, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur. The court initiated contempt proceedings against Kumre for selectively applying a precedent regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole, refusing parole to 35 eligible prisoners while granting it to 6 ineligible ones. Additionally, Kumre was accused of making misleading statements in affidavits filed with the court regarding certain prisoners' eligibility for parole. Over the course of several hearings and affidavits filed, the court found contradictions in Kumre's statements and determined he had arbitrarily exercised his powers, warranting contempt proceedings.
Delh hc rakesh kumar v. vijayanta arya
The court found R-3, a police officer, guilty of contempt of court for arresting the petitioner without following proper legal procedures as outlined in a previous Supreme Court case. Specifically, R-3 failed to serve the required notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C. before arresting the petitioner. While R-3 apologized, the court did not accept the apology as it was not sincere and was only offered as a last resort. As a result, the court sentenced R-3 to one day in simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 2,000, and costs of Rs. 15,000 to be paid to the petitioner. However, the sentence will be kept in abeyance for two
Sc order freedom of rel act
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of George Mangalapilly challenging his prosecution under Sections 153(B)(1), 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act. The key witness in the case, Dharmendar Dohar, denied in his testimony that he was forcibly converted and said the appellant did not contact him. Given that the prosecution's entire case rested on this witness, and his testimony did not support the charges, the Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant.
Misher ali-judgment-24-mar-2021 (1)
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
Sc order uapa sep 9
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
Sc migrant labourers order 24 may-2021
The Supreme Court of India heard a suo moto writ petition regarding problems faced by migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted submissions from petitioners regarding inadequate distribution of dry rations, cooked food and cash transfers to migrant workers. States provided details of steps taken to help migrant workers, including transportation, food and registration processes.
The Court emphasized the need to complete registration of unorganized workers under new social security laws to help workers access welfare schemes. It directed the central government to file an affidavit with details on developing a national database for registration of all unorganized workers across states. The Court also stressed the need to effectively monitor welfare schemes to ensure benefits reach beneficiaries.
Sudha may 21 hc order
The petitioner, Maaysha Singh, filed a writ petition seeking bail for her mother, Sudha Bharadwaj, who was imprisoned. While the petitioner no longer pressed the request for bail on medical grounds, the court noted that prisoners have a right to their medical records under the constitution. The court ordered the prison authorities to provide all of Bharadwaj's medical records and test results upon request. The court also agreed that Bharadwaj should be allowed to make phone calls to approved family members after medical visits. The writ petition was then disposed of with these orders regarding access to medical information.
Sc order right to be represented 18 dec
The Supreme Court of India set aside the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that had affirmed the appellant's conviction. The Supreme Court found that the High Court disposed of the appellant's appeal in his absence and without legal representation, which violated his right to due process under the Indian Constitution. The case was restored to the High Court to be reheard, with directions that the appellant receive legal representation and for the matter to be heard expeditiously.
What's hot (20)
MArch-April 2022 bombay-hc-emergency-parole-413821.pdf
MArch-April 2022 bombay-hc-emergency-parole-413821.pdf
Similar to SC order about Muslim vendors dated - December 17, 2021.pdf
Sc covid bail order
The Supreme Court of India heard petitions related to interim bail orders granted to prisoners in Delhi due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court had previously modified interim bail orders on October 20th, 2020. The Supreme Court stayed parts of that High Court order and has now directed that 2318 prisoners granted interim bail by trial courts and 356 granted by the High Court must surrender within 15 days. The Court also directed the Amicus Curiae to submit a report on prison overcrowding within 4 weeks and for replies to be filed within 4 weeks thereafter. The matters will be heard again on April 26th, 2021.
Virendra vs state of up
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a criminal appeal pending in the High Court. The petitioner had been in jail for 21 years without remission while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court gave the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application in the pending criminal appeal before the High Court. The Court observed that if a bail application is filed, the High Court shall consider it forthwith. The Court expected the High Court to decide any bail application within one month of filing.
Sc bail to undertrial order 18-jan-2021
The Supreme Court of India granted leave in a criminal appeal case involving Rakesh Mishra who had been in jail for over 12 years while awaiting trial in connection with an FIR from 2009. The Court expressed dismay over the lengthy pre-trial detention. In the interest of justice, the Court directed that Rakesh Mishra be released on bail during the pending trial, subject to conditions set by the Trial Court. The Court also directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within 6 months and submit a compliance report.
Hc order
The court hearing addressed a writ petition regarding a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks extending deadlines for intellectual property applications during the COVID-19 lockdown. The court ruled that the public notice was contrary to a Supreme Court order by setting the limitation period start date as March 25th instead of March 15th. It also found the notice set an unreasonable deadline of May 18th for filings. As a result, the court suspended the public notice and clarified the respondents must follow the Supreme Court order to protect limitation periods starting from March 15th.
36099_2022_13_1501_43322_Judgement_10-Apr-2023.pdf
This document is a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding an appeal challenging a detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA). The appellant argued that the detention order should be quashed due to a 60-day delay in considering his representation. The court examined whether there is a conflict between two previous constitutional bench judgments regarding whether the central government must wait for an advisory board's decision before ruling on a representation. The court also considered whether illegible documents provided to the appellant in Chinese were grounds for quashing the order.
Sc order deshmukh plea
The Supreme Court of India dismissed special leave petitions filed by Anil Deshmukh challenging a Bombay High Court order directing a preliminary inquiry by an independent agency into allegations against Deshmukh, who was formerly the Home Minister of Maharashtra. The Court said the serious nature of the allegations required an independent inquiry and it was not persuaded by the arguments that an inquiry was not needed since Deshmukh had resigned.
Sc allahabad hc bail order may 25
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order granting anticipatory bail related to a Covid situation. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the respondent to appear in the first week of July. It also stayed the general observations and directions in the High Court order regarding bail and appointed a senior counsel as an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
S bagh review plea order
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a review petition seeking reconsideration of an earlier order regarding the right to protest. In a 3-judge bench order:
1. The Court allowed the application for permission to file a review petition but rejected the request for an oral hearing.
2. After reviewing the petition and earlier case records, the Court was convinced there was no error in the previous order warranting reconsideration.
3. The Court affirmed that the Constitution allows for the right to protest but not at all times and places, and prolonged occupation of public areas affecting others' rights is not permitted.
26252_2022_1_27_38090_Order_09-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Sidhique Kappan, who had been held in custody since October 2020 related to charges under the UAPA and IT Act. While the Court refrained from commenting on the investigation, it directed that Kappan be released on bail subject to conditions like residing in Delhi and reporting to police, citing the lengthy custody undergone. The Court also stipulated conditions for Kappan's release on bail and participation in legal proceedings.
Siddique Kappan bail.pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Sidhique Kappan, who had been held in custody since October 2020 related to charges under the UAPA and IT Act. While the Court refrained from commenting on the investigation, it directed that Kappan be released on bail subject to conditions like residing in Delhi and reporting to police weekly. The Court also stipulated he attend trial proceedings and not contact anyone related to the case.
Delhi hc order dated nov 2
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Delhi regarding a bail petition. The respondent/accused, Faisal Farooq, is an educationist who runs several schools. He was granted bail in one case (FIR 134/2020), but was arrested the day of his scheduled release in another case (FIR 73/2020). The respondent's lawyer argued that the second arrest was mala fide to prevent his release. The court examined past judgments establishing that bail once granted should only be cancelled for cogent reasons. The chargesheet also indicates the respondent was not present at the site of the alleged offense. The court will determine if there are sufficient grounds to cancel the previously granted bail.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabricating evidence in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. While not examining the merits of the case, the Court noted that Setalvad had been in custody for over 2 months, essential investigation was complete, and the offenses dated back to 2002. It directed that she be released on interim bail on furnishing a cash bond or surety until the High Court considers her regular bail application. The Court clarified this should not be seen as a reflection on the case merits.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdf
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad, who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabrication of evidence in a 2002 riot case. While not assessing the merits of the case, the Court noted that essential investigation was complete, her custody was not needed during the pending High Court proceedings, and interim bail was justified given she had been in custody for over 2 months as a female accused. However, conditions were imposed including surrendering her passport until the High Court considers the matter.
Sc _rajasthan_hc_stay_order
The Supreme Court of India heard a special leave petition filed by the High Court of Rajasthan against the State of Rajasthan. The Court issued a notice to the respondents and granted an interim stay of directions in paragraphs 15 and 16 of an order dated March 31, 2020 in a related criminal miscellaneous bail application case. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Victim right to appeal 14248 2020 35_1503_23651_order_28-aug-2020
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal filed by Parvinder Kansal against the State of NCT of Delhi. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the criminal appeal based on a signed non-reportable order placed on the file.
Sc sudarshan news order 23-sep-2020
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by Firoz Iqbal Khan against the Union of India and others. It summarizes the hearing held on September 23, 2020. During the hearing, the Solicitor General requested deferring the hearing to allow the central government time to issue a notice to Sudarshan News and take action. The court agreed to defer the hearing to October 5, 2020 and ordered the notice's proceedings and any actions to be subject to the outcome of this case. The interim order from September 15, 2020 will remain in effect until further orders.
Madras Hgh Court RSS rally order Nov 4.pdf
The document summarizes contempt petitions filed against respondents for disobeying a court order directing permission be granted for processions and public meetings. It discusses arguments from petitioners and respondents. The court found intelligence reports referenced old cases and was not sufficient grounds for rejection. However, 6 sensitive areas were recently impacted so permission was rightly rejected there for now. For other areas, the court found no reason to reject requests so contempt petitions will proceed. The court upheld the importance of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly in a democracy.
Supreme Court of India - Judgement on National Judicial Accountability Commis...
This document summarizes the events related to the recusal of Justice Anil R. Dave from hearing a set of cases challenging the validity of the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. It notes that Justice Dave was originally presiding over the three-judge bench hearing the cases. However, after the Acts were notified and Justice Dave became a member of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, he recused himself from the five-judge bench hearing the matters. The document discusses the arguments made for and against Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar remaining on the reconstituted bench.
Kerala hc no cash deposit
This document is a court order from the High Court of Kerala regarding a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court but was ordered to deposit Rs. 25,000 towards a Corona Relief Fund. The High Court quashes this condition, finding that courts cannot direct accused persons to make cash deposits for bail. However, the petitioner must still comply with all other bail conditions. Due to Covid-19 restrictions, the Court also directs police to allow the petitioner and sureties to travel to execute the bail bond.
K.K. Modi v. K..N. Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573.pdf
The Supreme Court of India had to determine (1) whether a clause in a memorandum of understanding referring disputes to the Chairman of IFCI constituted a valid arbitration agreement, and (2) whether a related civil suit filed by one party was an abuse of process. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the intention was not for the Chairman to act as an arbitrator but rather as an expert, and so his decision was not a valid arbitration award. Regarding the second issue, the Court found the civil suit was only a valid independent challenge to the decision itself and not as an award, but was otherwise an abuse to the extent it duplicated the arbitration petition. The appeal was thus partly allowed.
Similar to SC order about Muslim vendors dated - December 17, 2021.pdf (20)
36099_2022_13_1501_43322_Judgement_10-Apr-2023.pdf
36099_2022_13_1501_43322_Judgement_10-Apr-2023.pdf
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdf
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdf
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdf
Victim right to appeal 14248 2020 35_1503_23651_order_28-aug-2020
Victim right to appeal 14248 2020 35_1503_23651_order_28-aug-2020
Supreme Court of India - Judgement on National Judicial Accountability Commis...
Supreme Court of India - Judgement on National Judicial Accountability Commis...
Recently uploaded
Snigdha-Sreenath-Minor-v-Travancore-Devaswom-Board-WPCNO-39847-OF-2023-2024-L...
केरल उच्च न्यायालय ने 11 जून, 2024 को मंडला पूजा में भाग लेने की अनुमति मांगने वाली 10 वर्षीय लड़की की रिट याचिका को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की एक बड़ी पीठ के समक्ष इस मुद्दे की लंबित प्रकृति पर जोर दिया गया। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अनिल के. नरेंद्रन और न्यायमूर्ति हरिशंकर वी. मेनन की खंडपीठ द्वारा पारित किया गया
在线办理(latrobe毕业证书)拉筹伯大学毕业证Offer一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(latrobe毕业证书)拉筹伯大学毕业证》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
A draft Ukraine-Russia treaty from April 2022
A draft Ukraine-Russia treaty from April 2022, published here in full for the first time.
13062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Youngest c m in India- Pema Khandu Biography
Pema Khandu, born on August 21, 1979, is an Indian politician and the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. He is the son of former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Dorjee Khandu. Pema Khandu assumed office as the Chief Minister in July 2016, making him one of the youngest Chief Ministers in India at that time.
Howard Fineman, Veteran Political Journalist and TV Pundit, Dies at 75
Howard Fineman, Veteran Political Journalist and TV Pundit, Dies at 75LUMINATIVE MEDIA/PROJECT COUNSEL MEDIA GROUP
From his beginnings with a daily newspaper, he moved easily through Newsweek magazine to cable news and, later, to the frontiers of online journalism.Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptx
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
Recently uploaded (8)
Snigdha-Sreenath-Minor-v-Travancore-Devaswom-Board-WPCNO-39847-OF-2023-2024-L...
Snigdha-Sreenath-Minor-v-Travancore-Devaswom-Board-WPCNO-39847-OF-2023-2024-L...
Howard Fineman, Veteran Political Journalist and TV Pundit, Dies at 75
Howard Fineman, Veteran Political Journalist and TV Pundit, Dies at 75
SC order about Muslim vendors dated - December 17, 2021.pdf
- 1. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Contempt Petition (Civil) No 881 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 1989 of 2020 T M Rabbani ... Petitioner(s) Versus G Vani Mohan & Ors ... Respondent(s) WITH Contempt Petition (Civil) No 955 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 5908 of 2020 O R D E R 1 We have heard Mr Gaichangpou Gangmei and Mr V Sridhar Reddy, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr C S Vaidyanathan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – contemnors. 2 By an order of this Court dated 27 January 2020, in SLP(C) No 1989 of 2020, the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 27 September 2019 in Writ Petition No 40252 of 2015 has been stayed. Thereafter, there was an order of this Court dated 8 February 2021 in Contempt Petition (C) No 152 of 2021. 3 Mr C S Vaidyanathan submits that the respondents were in a difficult situation as a result of a subsequent order of a Single Judge of the High Court dated 21 October 2021 and there was no intent to evade complying with the order of this Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2021.12.18 12:08:01 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
- 2. 2 Court. It needs no clarification that the order of this Court would have precedence notwithstanding anything contained in any order of the High Court. 4 In the face of the above orders, it is impermissible for the respondent – contemnors to either exclude the license holders from participating in the auction or from being granted leases, including in the shopping complex constructed by the State, on the ground of their religion. 5 In the circumstances, in order to enable the respondent-contemnors to obviate any coercive steps being taken against them for breach of the order of this Court, we direct that none of the tenants/shop holders shall be excluded from participating in the auction or from the grant of leases including in the shopping complex on the ground of their religion. 6 The Contempt Petitions are accordingly disposed of. 7 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. …………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [A S Bopanna] New Delhi; December 17, 2021 -S-
- 3. 3 ITEM NO.43+13 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 881/2021 in SLP(C) No. 1989/2020 T.M RABBANI Petitioner(s) VERSUS G. VANI MOHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.149806/2021-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.149803/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 955/2021 in SLP(C) No. 5908/2020 (FOR ADMISSION) Date : 17-12-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Mr.Yashvir Kumar, Adv. Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Mukesh Chandra, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 In terms of the signed order, the Contempt Petitions are disposed of. 2 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)