Even though the delay in the instant case was caused due to petitioner’s actions, nevertheless, Lokayukta must complete the investigations within a time frame for a delay may defeat several rights of the petitioner.
Delhi High Court observed that repeated petitions seeking to interdict the proceedings before Lokpal would defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
While dismissing the petition seeking ED/CBI probe in Uddhav Thackeray income source along with other office bearers of Shivsena party, Bombay High Court held the same to be an abuse of the process of law.
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J. quashed the proceedings initiated against a public servant working as an Executive Engineer in
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sandeep Sharma, J. allowed a petition filed under Section 438 CrPC holding
Supreme Court: Writing down a hefty 570-page judgement, the Bench of P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ restored the conviction order of
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: In the petition praying for implementation of the recommendation/report of the Lokayukta Uttar Pradesh, dated 22nd February, 2012, the Court
Supreme Court: Owing to the difference of opinion of Madan B. Lokur and R. Banumathi, JJ, the matter related to continuation of
Supreme Court: Providing a major relief to Jayalalitha in the high profile disproportionate assets case, the 3 Judge Bench comprising H.L. Dattu,