Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed whether the magnitude of offence can be the only criterion for granting bail and further
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap, JJ., refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJ., Surya Kant* and Hima Kohli, JJ., held that the Bank is not the
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., examines whether on mere refusal to marry the offence of cheating be constituted under Section 417
Delhi High Court: Getting indulged in Virtual Currencies even after receiving public notices not to deal in the same and further duping
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J., addressed a matter wherein a mother was cheated of an amount Rs 16,50,000 by a man
Kerala High Court: Shircy V., J., dismissed the bail application of one Sessy Xavier, the infamous fake lawyer. The Bench stated, “The
Supreme Court: In a case where the detenu was accused of committing a series of criminal offences from October, 2017 to December,
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., observed that, “…in the case of cheating, the
Abhinav Pandey, MM, Tis Hazari Court directs Delhi Police to lodge FIR and investigate allegations of fraud in crypto transactions. Complainant sought
“The exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.”
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., addressed a matter wherein the appellant challenged the conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions
Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J., while addressing a matter expressed that: “…a transaction hit by lis pendens would not result
Chhattisgarh High Court: Gautam Chourdiya, J., upheld the decision of the trial court in a matter with regard to Section 379 Penal
Orissa High Court: S. K. Panigrahi J., granted bail and directed the petitioner company to pay the amount in accordance with the
Orissa High Court: S.K. Panigrahi, J., while addressing a matter with regard to money laundering by way of ponzi schemes, stated that, “Act
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., addressed an application that sought to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471 of
Kerala High Court: Alexander Thomas, J. disposed of a matter wherein a complaint was lodged against the petitioner accusing of committing rape
Bombay High Court: S.S. Shinde, J. denied to quash the charges under Sections 376 and 420 IPC as prayed by the petitioner
Uttaranchal High Court: R. C. Khulbe, J. refused to grant a bail where the applicant was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468