Search Results

The Court quashed two FIRs against a Bengaluru man who had reported suspected Bangladeshi nationals allegedly staying illegally in the city.

Malviya had posted an edited photo of Rahul Gandhi and asked if he was speaking the language of Pakistan while criticising certain comments made by Gandhi on Operation Sindoor.

Malviya and Goswami had been accused of spreading misinformation that the Indian National Congress has an office in Turkey's Istanbul.

The Court made the observation while dealing with competing claims over shares held by Vijay Mallya in United Breweries Limited (UBL), which were pledged in connection with a loan.

It has also sought the quashing of demand notices and assessment proceedings initiated by the concerned gram panchayat authorities for the assessment year 2026-27.

The FIR alleges that Patil and his supporters conspired to delete the names of 198 Muslim voters from the electoral rolls in Belagavi during the Special Intensive Revision process.

The petitioner said he has cared for the bird since 2018, spending ₹6,000–₹10,000 monthly on its upkeep.

The officer is liable to be hauled up for playing around with the life of the petitioner so despicably, the Court said.

The plea has been filed by a lawyer, who has argued that the government's decision to confer the honorific on engineers discriminates between different professions.

The Court said the State could not have breached the ceiling of 50 percent reservation.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde questioned basis for lodging criminal case before electoral authorities take a decision on the Form 7 applications.

The Court said the petitioner had not fulfilled the ingredient of the offence of Section 69 when he made the promise after having sexual intercourse.

Patil and his supporters are accused of deleting the names of 198 Muslim voters from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Belagavi.

The Court observed that the procedure followed by the Athani trial court in summoning Savadi appeared to be contrary to law.

The Court said the message posted on the Facebook account Hindu Samrat Dharmasene did not fulfil the ingredients of the offences of outrage religious feelings under Section 295A.

The complainant in the case was a woman who claimed that she had sexual relations with the petitioner's husband.