KULDEEP NANDRAJOG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — C528/1182/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) Section 120B,420. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010092662026
Filing Number
C528/4443/2026
Filing Date
29-May-2026
Registration No
C528/1182/2026
Registration Date
29-May-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)
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KULDEEP NANDRAJOG
Adv. SHARANG DHULIA
-
2.ANJALI TYAGI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
-
2.MR. KULDEEP KUMAR KATARIYA
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
01-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
Case Summary: C528/1182/2026 Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand The court stayed criminal proceedings against the applicants in a real estate dispute involving non-delivery of a plot under the "Har Har Gange Phase-II" housing scheme. The applicants argued the dispute is contractual (governed by an arbitration clause requiring 8% refund if possession isn't delivered) and that criminal proceedings constitute abuse of process, especially since the developer company has been liquidated. The court issued notice to the complainant and directed that Criminal Case No.618 of 2025 remain stayed pending the next hearing; the stay application was disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Jun-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
29-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. C528/1182/2026
Case Summary: C528/1182/2026 Kuldeep Nandrajog and Anjali Tyagi v. State of Uttarakhand The court stayed criminal proceedings against the applicants in a real estate dispute involving non-delivery of a plot under the "Har Har Gange Phase-II" housing scheme. The applicants argued the dispute is contractual (governed by an arbitration clause requiring 8% refund if possession isn't delivered) and that criminal proceedings constitute abuse of process, especially since the developer company has been liquidated. The court issued notice to the complainant and directed that Criminal Case No.618 of 2025 remain stayed pending the next hearing; the stay application was disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts