{"id":215222,"date":"2019-05-31T16:15:22","date_gmt":"2019-05-31T10:45:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=215222"},"modified":"2019-06-14T15:49:50","modified_gmt":"2019-06-14T10:19:50","slug":"aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/","title":{"rendered":"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been"},"content":{"rendered":"

Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi:<\/strong> The Bench of Virender Singh, J. (Chairperson) and Let. Gen. N.B. Singh, Member (A), disposed of a petition with the directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant, treating this original application as his representation and dispose of the same with a reasoned speaking order.<\/p>\n

In the present matter, the applicant\u2019s grievance was that he was denied promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar, and was superseded being overage. The reason as stated by the applicant through his counsel, Ajit Kakkar being, since he was on UN Mission in Sudan, therefore he could only be detailed on the promotion cadre course only upon de-induction. Further, that he had passed the cadre on 05-05-2019 and despite there being a vacancy on 01-06-2019, he was not promoted and later was superseded. In the pertinent matter, the Counsel for the respondent were, Jyotsana Kaushik and Maj Priti Tyagi, OIC, Legal Cell.<\/p>\n

The Court was of the opinion that the \u201cdelayed de-induction from Sudan, due to service exigencies was squarely responsible for his non-availability for the promotion cadre course\u201d.\u00a0 <\/em>Further, when there is also a provision for age and service limit waiver by COAS, it was inexplicable as to why the beneficial provisions of the Regulations and Policies were not been considered. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant, treating this OA as his representation and dispose of the same with a reasoned speaking order.[Hav Rajesh P v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine AFT 1431<\/b><\/a>, decided on 13-05-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Virender Singh, J. (Chairperson) and Let. Gen. N.B. Singh, Member (A), disposed of a <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":198586,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[35761,35763,35760,35762],"class_list":["post-215222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-beneficial-provisions","tag-promotion-cadre-course","tag-reasoned-speaking-order","tag-service-limit-waiver"],"yoast_head":"\nAFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Virender Singh, J. (Chairperson) and Let. Gen. N.B. Singh, Member (A), disposed of a\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-05-31T10:45:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-06-14T10:19:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/\",\"name\":\"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-05-31T10:45:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-14T10:19:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Armed Forces Tribunal\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been","og_description":"Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Virender Singh, J. (Chairperson) and Let. Gen. N.B. Singh, Member (A), disposed of a","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-05-31T10:45:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-06-14T10:19:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/","name":"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg","datePublished":"2019-05-31T10:45:22+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-14T10:19:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Armed Forces Tribunal"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/31\/aft-court-demands-reasoned-speaking-order-explaining-as-to-why-the-beneficial-provisions-were-not-extended-when-it-should-have-been\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"AFT | Court demands \u2018reasoned speaking order\u2019 explaining as to why the beneficial provisions were not extended when it should have been"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264118,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/23\/how-will-the-higher-court-know-why-review-jurisdiction-was-exercised-courts-must-mention-what-was-that-error-apparent-on-the-face-of-the-record-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":215222,"position":0},"title":"How will the higher Court know why review jurisdiction was exercised? Courts must mention what was that error apparent on the face of the record: SC\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where the division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a review petition by merely stating that \u201cit is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference\u201d, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ observed that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-111.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-111.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-111.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-111.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-111.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":246079,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/pensionary-benefits\/","url_meta":{"origin":215222,"position":1},"title":"AFT | Failure to issue speaking order regarding condonation of 6 months deficiency for pensionary benefits; Tribunal imposes a cost of Rs 50,000 for non-compliance of its order","author":"Editor","date":"March 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): The Division Bench of Justice Devi Prasad Singh (Chairperson) and Air Marshal BBP Sinha, Member (A) heard the instant application wherein the allegation was levelled against the authority concerned of non-observance of Tribunal\u2019s order. The applicant was enrolled in the Army as Sepoy on 23-01-1980. On\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Armed Forces Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257666,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/25\/judicial-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":215222,"position":2},"title":"Utt HC | Judicial order necessarily has to be a reasoned one; Court finds reasoning by the Single Judge cryptic, remands the case back","author":"Editor","date":"November 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. decided on a petition which was filed challenging the validity of the order passed by the Single Judge whereby the respondent-writ petitioner, M\/s Kohli Enterprises, was not only blacklisted, but even its registration was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":238924,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/09\/all-hc-can-a-complaint-filed-in-light-of-s-138-ni-act-be-dismissed-on-ground-of-one-day-delay-read-courts-reasoned-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":215222,"position":3},"title":"All HC | Can a complaint filed in light of S. 138 NI Act be dismissed on ground of one day delay? Read Court’s reasoned order","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court:\u00a0Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., held that a complaint made in light of dishonor of cheque filed with a delay of one day cannot be dismissed as one day delay has to be excluded. The instant application was filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on being\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":180614,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/11\/order-director-industries-quashed-not-speaking-reasoned-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":215222,"position":4},"title":"Order of Director of Industries quashed for not being a speaking and reasoned order","author":"Saba","date":"January 11, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Himachal Pradesh: A civil writ petition was heard and decided by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., wherein it was held that an order passed by the Director of Industries, to the detriment of the petitioner firm, was liable to be quashed for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281987,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/19\/allahabad-high-court-upholds-orders-passed-by-sultanpur-court-refusing-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwals-application-to-quash-criminal-proceedings-for-making-151\/","url_meta":{"origin":215222,"position":5},"title":"Allahabad High Court upholds orders passed by Sultanpur Court refusing Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s application to quash criminal proceedings for making derogatory remarks against BJP and Congress","author":"Editor","date":"January 19, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"If during course of investigation some credible evidence have been collected, charge sheet has been filed, cognizance has been taken, discharge application has been rejected by the Trial Court by speaking and reasoned order and that order has been upheld by the Revisional Court, by a speaking and reasoned order,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image31.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215222\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/198586"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}