DELHI CM INTERIM BAIL DENIED BY ROUSE AVENUE COURT

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal surrendered before Tihar Jail on 2nd June in compliance to the earlier orders passed by the Apex Court. However, his interim bail plea filed on medical grounds was pending for orders today by the Delhi District Rouse Avenue Court. The interim bail was strongly opposed by SGI Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju both appearing for ED on following amongst other grounds:-

Interim bail plea is not maintainable
Kejriwal is challenging the order passed by Apex Court, which is not permissible. The liberty was granted only to the extent of filing the regular bail and not interfering with the interim bail.
It was pleaded that unless a prima facie case is made out that no offence is committed, the relief of interim bail cannot be entertained.

On the other hand, advocates appearing for Arvind Kejriwal, i.e. Vivek Jain and ld. Senior Counsel N Hariharan submitted that due to the medical condition i.e. shooting of diabeties of Kejriwal due to stress during campaigning has constrained them to file the application for interim bail plea.

After hearing both the sides at length, the Ld. Special Judge Ms Kaveri Baweja was pleased to pronounce the order and dismissed the application seeking interim bail.

Vivek Jain, Advocate for CM Kejriwal pleaded that recently weight of Kejriwal is fluctuating and he is stated to be not in good health, to this, it was suggested that appropriate application in this regard be filed.

Now, application for regular bail on behalf of CM Kejriwal is listed on 7th June.

Comments

Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to issue passport says Allahabad High Court

Facts and Background The case involved a minor child aged about 2 years at the time of application whose mother applied for her passport on January 17, 2025. Despite completing all required formalities, the passport authorities kept the application pending indefinitely. The reason cited was the ongoing matrimonial dispute and criminal cases between the child's parents (the natural guardians). The authorities essentially treated these parental conflicts as a ground to withhold progress on the minor's passport application. The mother approached the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition, seeking directions for expeditious processing and issuance. Observations of the Court Section 6 is Exhaustive and Mandatory Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, provides the complete and exclusive list of grounds on which a passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document. - These grounds include matters like: ...

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN DELHI

Hello friends today we shall talk about the procedure for registration of marriage in Delhi. ELIGIBILITY The marriage must have been solemnized either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, The Groom must have attained the minimum age of 21 years. The bride must be of the age of 18 years at least. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Photo ID proofs of both the parties like Aadhar card / PAN card / Voter card Date of birth proofs of both parties like 10 th certificate, etc. Permanent address proof must be there . Marriage photographs and Invitation Card. Passport Size Photographs of both parties. 2 witness in case marriage registered under Hindu Marriage Act or 3 witnesses in case it is registered under the Special Marriage Act along with their respective proofs like PAN CARD/ AADHAR CARD etc. An affidavit from both parties certifying the date of their marriage and more specifically stating that the marriage has not been performed between pers...

DISTRICT COURT THRISSUR, KERALA HELD AIR ASIA LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Introduction District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thrissur, Kerala (India), held AirAsia India Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Facts and Background In this matter, a passenger's flight was cancelled by the airline for operational reasons. Under applicable rules (including those from India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation or DGCA, and the Consumer Protection Act), passengers are typically entitled to a full refund in such cases, and many airlines (including low-cost carriers like AirAsia) are expected to process automatic refunds promptly without requiring manual claims in straightforward cancellations. However, AirAsia failed to issue an automatic refund for the ticket amount (which was ₹2,983). The passenger made repeated attempts to obtain the refund but faced ongoing issues and harassment, ultimately having to approach the consumer forum to recover even this small sum. This caused financial loss, inconvenience, a...

WakeelSaab.in

Search This Blog