Search Results for "Sushila Aggarwal"

35 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 35 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Criminal Petition Against Orders Directing Regular Bail Despite Subsisting Anticipatory Bail. Held That Filing of Charge-Sheet Does Not Terminate Anticipatory Bail; Accused Need Not Apply for Regular Bail Unless Bail Order Limits Duration, per Sushila Aggarwal v. State.

The petitioners, accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 115/2025, were granted anticipatory ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Appeal in Eviction Case Under UP Urban Buildings Act, 1972. Prescribed Authority's finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship under Section 21(1)(a) reinstated as Appellate Authority's reversal lacked sufficient reasoning.

The appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute over a cinema building in Allahabad. The appellant, successor-in-interest to Murlidhar Aggarwal, sough...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against High Court Order Holding Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Despite Custody in Another Case. Person in Custody Cannot Apprehend Arrest and Thus Cannot Seek Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 438 CrPC.

The Supreme Court considered the question of whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (C...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Anticipatory Bail Application Maintainable Despite Applicant's Custody in Another Crime. Section 438 CrPC Does Not Bar a Person Already Arrested in a Different Case from Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail.

The applicant, Amar S. Mulchandani, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in connection with C.R.No.806 of 2019 registered at ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Modifies Interest Rate to 9% in Consumer Disputes Against Developer for Delayed Possession. The Court upheld deficiency in service but reduced interest from 15% to 9% per annum, following earlier precedent in Himanshu Arora case.

The Supreme Court disposed of a batch of appeals arising from consumer complaints against DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd. regarding its residential proje...