KULDEEP NANDRAJOG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1118/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,420. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: UKHC010087652026

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

C528/4186/2026

Filing Date

22-05-2026

Registration No

C528/1118/2026

Registration Date

22-05-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS OF POLICE CHALLANI CASES ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,420

Petitioner(s)

KULDEEP NANDRAJOG

Adv. SHARANG DHULIA

ANJALI TYAGI

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

SMT. SULOCHANA KANDARI

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

26-05-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

01-06-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

01-06-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Case Summary: C528/1118/2026 Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand The High Court granted a stay of criminal proceedings against the applicants in a real estate dispute involving an undelivered housing plot. The applicants challenged the Magistrate's cognizance, arguing the dispute is contractual (governed by arbitration clauses), the developer company is liquidated, and no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as required by Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C528/1118/2026 Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand The High Court granted a stay of criminal proceedings against the applicants in a real estate dispute involving an undelivered housing plot. The applicants challenged the Magistrate's cognizance, arguing the dispute is contractual (governed by arbitration clauses), the developer company is liquidated, and no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration as required by Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case