KULDEEP NANDRAJOG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1183/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,420. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010092652026
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
C528/4442/2026
Filing Date
29-05-2026
Registration No
C528/1183/2026
Registration Date
29-05-2026
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
Petitioner(s)
KULDEEP NANDRAJOG
Adv. SHARANG DHULIA
ANJALI TYAGI
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
MR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PADAVANDA
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: C528/1183/2026 The court issued notice to respondent no.2 and stayed further criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.620 of 2025 pending before the Haridwar Magistrate. The case involves a property dispute arising from a housing scheme where the complainant invested in a plot but did not receive possession or a sale deed. The applicants contend the matter is contractual (governed by an arbitration clause), that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration (violating Supreme Court guidelines), and that the company has been liquidated since 2018, removing their control. The matter is adjourned for service report and counter affidavit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C528/1183/2026 The court issued notice to respondent no.2 and stayed further criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.620 of 2025 pending before the Haridwar Magistrate. The case involves a property dispute arising from a housing scheme where the complainant invested in a plot but did not receive possession or a sale deed. The applicants contend the matter is contractual (governed by an arbitration clause), that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before FIR registration (violating Supreme Court guidelines), and that the company has been liquidated since 2018, removing their control. The matter is adjourned for service report and counter affidavit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts