Skip to content
rawlaw unfiltered legal news
  • Home
  • News
  • Videos
  • Bookmarks
  • Profile
  • facebook.com
  • twitter.com
  • t.me
  • instagram.com
  • youtube.com

Upholds Simultaneous Proclamation and Attachment Orders Under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.: “Judicial Discretion Valid When Procedural Compliance and Evidence Are Established”

Home » Upholds Simultaneous Proclamation and Attachment Orders Under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.: "Judicial Discretion Valid When Procedural Compliance and Evidence Are Established"
Calcutta High Court Upholds Simultaneous Proclamation and Attachment Orders Under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.: "Judicial Discretion Valid When Procedural Compliance and Evidence Are Established"
Posted inNews

Calcutta High Court Upholds Simultaneous Proclamation and Attachment Orders Under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.: “Judicial Discretion Valid When Procedural Compliance and Evidence Are Established”

1. Court's Decision: The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revisional application filed by the petitioner. It upheld the trial court's simultaneous issuance of orders for proclamation and attachment of property…
Posted by Rawlaw January 16, 2025

Recent News

  • Bombay High Court curtails Charity Commissioner’s overreach under public trust law — “Section 41A is about property and income, not moral correction,” apology direction quashed
  • Bombay High Court upholds quashing of stop-work notice under municipal law — “Authority must pass a reasoned order after reply; vague notices cannot stand,” appeal dismissed
  • Bombay High Court rejects MSME restructuring plea for ₹30 crore loan — “Eligibility under RBI revival framework hinges on loan limit, not outstanding exposure,” writ petition dismissed
  • Bombay High Court upholds arbitral award granting escalation despite restrictive clauses — “A defaulting employer cannot hide behind no-compensation terms,” commercial arbitration appeal dismissed
  • Bombay High Court refuses to appoint arbitrator for railway contract disputes exceeding 20% cap — “Party autonomy permits selective arbitrability; court cannot compel arbitration beyond agreed threshold,” Section 11 application dismissed
Copyright 2026 — Raw Law. All rights reserved.
Scroll to Top