A Srinagar court has discharged ex-J&K minister Naeem Akhtar and two others in a 2019 corruption case over the appointment of JKPCC MD. The judge ruled it was an administrative irregularity, not a criminal offence.
The Supreme Court rejected the bail plea of former IPS officer Pradeep Sharma in an illegal land allotment case. Sharma, who was the collector of Kutch district, is accused of misusing his position to allot government land illegally for personal benefit. He faces charges of corruption and criminal breach of trust. A case was filed against him in 2023.
Karti Chidambaram approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash a new CBI case against him. The agency alleges he accepted a bribe from Diageo Scotland to facilitate the lifting of a liquor import ban in 2005. At the time, his father, P. Chidambaram, was the Union Finance Minister. The case adds to the legal troubles facing the Congress leader.
![[MUDA SCAM] 'Governor Has No Authority To Sanction Prosecution Of CM Siddaramaiah': State to Karnataka High Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Muda-scam.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s plea against a Governor-sanctioned investigation into alleged corruption in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority has been postponed to January 20. He contests the legality of the sanction, claiming political motivations behind the allegations. The Lokayukta is investigating claims of improper land allocations to his wife amidst ongoing pressures from the BJP.
![[MUDA SCAM] Karnataka High Court Set To Hear CM Siddaramaiah's Appeal On Nov 23](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-36-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Karnataka: On Thursday(14th Nov): Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s appeal against Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s sanction to prosecute him in the MUDA scam case will be heard by a Division Bench on November 23. Siddaramaiah contests allegations of corruption involving land granted to his wife, previously upheld by a single-judge bench that dismissed his plea in September.
![[Forgery Case] "Court Acquits Jagadish Tytler, Abhishek Verma": Defence lawyer](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-5-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 12th November, A Delhi court acquitted Jagdish Tytler and Abhishek Verma on 12th November in the 2012 Chinese visa scam case. The court found insufficient evidence to convict them for allegedly forging a letter to facilitate visa extensions for Chinese officials. The prosecution’s claims were deemed unsubstantiated by Judge Kaveri Baweja.
Today, On 3rd October, AAP leader Satyendar Jain requested default bail from the Delhi High Court, arguing that the investigation into his money laundering case is incomplete. His legal team claims the trial court acted on insufficient evidence, challenging the validity of the charges. The hearing is scheduled for October 9.
![[MUDA Case] "Governor's Approval Under Section 17A of PCA & Doesn't Constitute Sanction Under Section 218 of BNSS": Karnataka HC Upholds Probe Against CM Siddaramaiah](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/MUDA-land-scam-case_-Siddaramaiah-challenges-in-Karnataka-High-Court-Governor-Thaawar-Chand-Gehlot-sanction-for-probe-India-Today.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 24th September, under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a corruption investigation against former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was approved by the Governor, upheld by the High Court. However, the court denied prosecution approval under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing safeguards for public officials.
Today, On 12th September, The Karnataka High Court concluded hearings on the Chief Minister’s petition challenging the Governor’s approval for prosecution. The Chief Minister argued that the decision was unconstitutional and politically motivated. The court reserved its judgment, expecting a final ruling soon. The case revolves around alleged offenses detailed in petitions by three individuals and concerns the Governor’s sanction for prosecution.