Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi747
S.N. Andley, J. (1) The constitution and continuance of the one-man Commission presided over by Justice J. N. Takru, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission', has been challenged by the petitioner P. R. Nayak on various grounds. Respondent No. 1 to this petition is the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and respondent No. 2 is Justice J. N. Takru himself. The petitioner, a Government servant, was, at the relevant time, the Managing Director of the Indian Refineries Limited, a public sector undertaking, now merged with the Indian Oil Corporation, another public sector undertaking. (2) Shortly stated, the Commission was appointed to inquire into alleged irregularities in the grant of contracts and in the actual construction of the Gauhati-Siliguri and Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur Pipelines and in the payments made to two contractors, namely, (1) Bechtels as Design Engineers and over-all Supervisors in Gauhati-Siliguri Pipeline...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 96(2002)DLT284; 2002(62)DRJ188
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. In the course of proceedings before a Commissionof Inquiry where the plaintiff was appearing in hisprofessional capacity as a Senior Advocate, in hiswritten submissions in the nature of argumentsaddressed to the Commission, the defendant allegedlymade certain libellous statements, giving rise to anaction for damages. Consequently, a suit for damagesagainst the defendant was brought before this Court.Alleged defamatory statements constituting basis ofthe suit, as reproduced in the plaint read as under:'Hence his (Plaintiffs)obsession with my sources is at theLTTE's behest. According to myinformation, Mr. Jethmalani has beenreceiving money from the LTTE beingdeposited in his son's account inCITIBANK in New York. That suchdeposits take place has been admitted byMr. Jethmalani.'2. The defendant has by making present applicationsought to effect certain amendments in his writtenstatement. A new paragraph 5A, to the followingeffect is sought to be added;5A: 'The alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3917
ORDERM.P. Singh, J.1. These two connected writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 28-10-1993 passed by the Kumher Inquiry Commission, Jodhpur (Camp-Bharatpur), directing the petitioners to produce :-(1) the case diaries of case Nos. 220, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230 of 1992 of the Police Station, Kumher;(2) Rojnamchas containing wireless messages sent by and received at the Police Station, Kumher on 1-6-1992 and 2-6-1992;(3) the report of the Intelligence Branch, Joint report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, and inspection thereof may be allowed to the parties;(4) the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police C.I.D. (Spl. Branch), Bharatpur Zone, containing some material which shall not be in the public interest to be disclosed and this part may not, therefore, be revealed to the parties;(5) the C.I.D. was also directed to produce the case-diaries Nos. 210, 218 and 219 of 1992;(6) the inspection was to be carried out by the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2000Mad373; 2000(2)CTC223
ORDERJudgement pronounced by K.G.Balakrishnan, CJ1. Petitioner is an advocate who appeared as a witness before the 2nd respondent commission which is appointed under the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 on 27.2.1999. On 23.7.1999 the workers attached to Manjolai Estate had staged, a procession along with their leaders and when the procession reached the residence of the District Collector of Tirunelveli, some of the leaders of the procession wanted to meet the Collector. According, to the petitioner, the police officials prevented them from meeting the Collector and encircled thousands of participants of the rally and forcefully drove them towards the bank of Thamirabarani river and because of the police excess some persons had been forced to flee away from that place and sustained, injuries and some others who were driven to the river side drowned in the nearby Thamirabarani river. As there were lot of allegations regarding lapses on the part of Police, a commission was constituted an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1993Ori157
Hansaria, C.J.1. 7th May, 1992. Cuttack was calm when the day dawned. Who had known that a 'disaster of unprecedented proportions' was going to strike and disturb placid waters of the Mahanadi and Katha-jodi? But it took place. A man-made tragedy took a great toll 124 deaths, according to the State), and it was our well known hooch tragedy. Not that the people of this State have not know a about such tragedies taking place in the past, but then, it was the great dimension of the tragedy which stunned the people, so much so that they almost lost faith in all instrumentalities of the State. People started thinking whether they had been left to the wolves to be killed. The question with which we are seized is about the responsibility of the State to find out why spurious liquor took the toll of 124 lives, and what steps are required to be taken to stop recurrence of such a heinous crime, at the root of which lies the naked greed for money and nothing else. Ours is a 'socialist democratic ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2004CriLJ224; 2003(II)OLR428
ORDER1. Relying upon Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, a petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in S.T. No. 161 of 1999 and S.T. No. 53 of 2000 by the accused persons under Section 340, Cr. P.C. praying for drawing up prosecution against P.Ws. 3, 15, 36 and 39 for having deliberately given false evidence in the Sessions Trials. The said petition having been rejected by order dated 15-2-2003, the present Criminal Misc. case is filed.2. The accused-petitioners are facing trial under Section 302, I.P.C. read with other sections for committing murder of Graham Stains and others. The Central Government by Notification had appointed Justice D. P. Wadhwa under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to inquire and report. The report was submitted and was placed before the Union Cabinet and was approved. According to the petitioners who are accused in the abovementioned Sessions cases, the aforesaid P.Ws. were also examined in the Wadhwa Commission ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2252; 1989CriLJ303; JT1988(3)SC372; 1988(2)SCALE272; (1988)4SCC49; [1988]Supp2SCR518; 1988(2)LC731(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. It is unfortunate that this case has arisen between lawyers and police who are both guardians of law and who constitute two important segments of society on whom the stability of the country depends. It is hoped that cordiality between the two sections will be restored soon.2. In order to avoid any further delay in the proceedings before the Committee consisting of Goswamy and Wadhwa, JJ., constituted by Order dated 23rd February, 1988 to enquire into certain incidents which took place on the 15th January, 1988, 21st January, 1988 and I7th February, 1988, we pass the following order now but we shall give detailed reasons in support of this order in due course.3. The order is as under:1. This order is passed on the basis of the material available on record, the various steps already taken before the Committee and other peculiar features of the case.2. The Delhi Administration has to examine first all its witnesses as required by Rule 5(5)(a) of the Commissions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(52)BLJR1162; 2004CriLJ2084; JT2004(1)SC608; 2004(4)SCALE554; (2004)5SCC26
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. The instant criminal appeals arising from a common judgment relating to the same incident, depict a rare, unfortunate and condemnable act of the police officials who contrary to the duty enjoined upon them to protect and maintain law and order, indulged in the act of attacking in a pre-planned and calculated manner Shri D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, in his court room and Chambers on 18th November, 1997 at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar.Facts of the present case: 2. In Sessions trial No. 592 of 1992, the Investigating Officer (Jokhu Singh) was examined as a witness on 7th May, 1997 in the Court of Shri D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. As the cross-examination could not be concluded the case was adjourned to 26th May, 1997. Thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates but this witness did not appear for the cross-examination. A show cause notice was issued against Jokhu Singh through Superintendent of Po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3887; JT2003(Suppl1)SC505; 2003(7)SCALE197; (2003)7SCC726; 2004(1)LC332(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a former judge of Madras High Court. He was appointed on 25.01.1979 and superannuated on 07.12.1981.In the meanwhile, by a notification dated 29.07.1981, he was appointed as Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the incidents which took place in Coimbatore Town on 23.07.1981 arising from attacks on the office premises of two Tamil newspapers 'Dinakaran' and 'Malai Murasu'. In the aforementioned notification dated 29.07.1981 it was stated: 'I am directed to say that the President requests Shri Justice P. Venugopal, Judge, Madras High Court to function as the Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 in respect of the incidents that took place in Coimbatore Town in Tamil Nadu on 23rd July, 1981. 2. The time spent by Shri Justice P. Venugopal in the performance of the said functions will count as 'Actual Service' within the meaning of paragraph 11(b)(i) of Part 'D' of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of India read with Section 2(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1970Delhi178
ORDER1. The petitioner, a resident of Bhiwani, Hissar District in the State of Haryana, has sought the following reliefs:1. That Section 4 and sub-section (b) (ii) of Section 7 and Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966 be declared as ultra virus and void. 2. That a suitable writ, order or direction may be issued to implement the Shah Commission Report in toto and that Chandigarh Capital Project as also Lalroo, Darabassi, Pathankot and areas of Gazilka and Malaut be declared as included in the territories of the Haryana State; and 3. That a suitable writ be issued ousting the authority of the Central Government from the conrol and management of the Bhakra Nangal complex and to vest the same in the State of Haryana in order that people of Haryana may have full share in the water of Satluj, Beas and Ravi rivers. 2. The Union of India and the State of Punjab, but not the State of Haryana, have filed returns constesting this petition.3. The two questions argued befor...
Tag this Judgment!