Search Results for "Maharashtra Police Rules"

2661 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2661 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Police Officer in SC/ST Act Case for Lack of Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC. Court Held That Acts Alleged Were in Discharge of Official Duty, Making Sanction Mandatory Before Investigation.

The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Petition Against Tribunal Order Directing Posting and Salary to Suspended Police Officer. Held that non-posting without salary amounts to deemed suspension and violates principles of natural justice.

The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 18th August 2010 in Original App...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Disposes Writ Petitions by Police Officers Challenging Investigation Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC. Court Considers Whether Judicial Magistrate First Class Could Direct Investigation Without Application of Mind.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard two writ petitions filed by police officers challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Police Patil Challenging Cancellation of Kerosene Retail Licence. Police Patil is not a Government Servant and is Permitted to Engage in Local Business Under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Village Police Patil Rules, 1968.

The petitioner, Ishwar S/o Vithalrao Mohite, is a Police Patil and has been running a retail kerosene shop in village Ghodki, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanab...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows PIL Seeking Directions to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for Compliance with Procedural Rules. Court Holds That Insistence on Personal Appearance of Claimants at Filing Is Not Mandatory Under Rule 254(2) of Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

This Public Interest Litigation was filed by Anil Prabhakar Tadkalkar, a practicing advocate, raising several issues concerning the disposal of claim ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Examines Legality of Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act, 1981 Citing Non-Application of Mind and Procedural Flaws. Detention Based on Stale Past Incidents and Improper Communication of Right to Representation Raises Concerns Under Article 22(5).

The petitioner, a resident of Aurangabad, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the preventive det...