Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Appellant original-petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.12295 of 2009 challenging order dated 18.9.09 passed by respondent No.1 herein, Commission of Inquiry presided by Hon'ble Mr Justice G.T.Nanavati ('Commission' for short). The petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 27.11.09. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, directed against the said judgment dated 27.11.09. During the pendency of the proceedings, certain further developments took place which have also been brought on record through Civil Application No.12673 of 2010 which application for amendment was allowed by order dated 23.11.2010. Consequential pleadings and prayers have also been added. 2. On 27.2.2002, an incident of setting fire of Sabarmati Express Train near Godhra Railway Station took place resulting into unfortunate death of 58 persons. This unfortunate incident resulted into spread of communal violence in various parts of the State of Gujarat a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. OWP No. 727 OF 201.AND OWP No. 804 OF 201.AND OWP No. 242 OF 201.1. Mohinder Singh and anr 2. Dr. Manohar lal Sharma 3. Peerzada Mohd. Sayeed 4. Satvir Gupta 5. Suman Lata Bhagat 6. Vikas Behal 7. Rattan Lal Tickoo 8. Sheikh Rafiq Ahmed Petitioners 1.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 2.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 3.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 4.J&K Accountability Commission and ors. 5.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 6.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 7.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 8.State of J&K and anr Respondent !Mr.S.K.Shukla, Advocate Mr. B.S. Salathia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate Mr. D.C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Verma, Advocate Mr. U.K. Jalali, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Bakshi, Advocate Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate Mr. Virender Bhat, Advocate Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC33
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The writ petition is a Public Interest Litigation having been filed by the General Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a political party in this State. On 18-2-1992, Mahamakam festival was celebrated at Kumbakonam. It is well known that the festival is celebrated once in 12 years and is considered to be a very prominent religious event of great public importance all over the country, That year, the Chief Minister of the State was physically present at the time of the festival to have a holy dip in the Mahamakam Tank at the auspicious hour, as already announced. But unfortunately, there was heavy stampede during the festival, as a result of which, several pilgrims died and several got injured. The newspapers gave different versions about the accident. Different reasons were adduced by the political parties as well as by the members of the public as regards the cause of the accident. Some of them indicted the Government and the Chief Minister. The Government of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. 01. The core and fundamental issue involved in these Appeals is whether the Accountability Commission (for short Commission) is possessed of the power of initiating suo moto proceedings under the Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Act, 2002 (for short Act of 2002). 02. Since the issue involved in these Appeals is common, they are, accordingly, being disposed of by this common judgement, excepting the lead case (LPA 15/2013). 03. These Appeals have arisen out of the judgement of the learned writ Court dated 04th January, 2013, passed in a batch of writ petitions, whereunder the power of the Commission, to initiate suo moto proceedings under the Act of 2002, was called in question. 04. The learned writ Court, vide aforesaid judgement, held regulation 9 of Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Regulations, 2005 (for short Regulations of 2005) to be ultra vires the Act of 2002 and, accordingly, struck down the same. The learned writ court, in conse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + STATE THROUGH CBI CRL.A. 1099/2013 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D. P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Advocates for CBI. Mr. H. S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kamna Vohra and Ms. Shilpa Dewan, Advocates for Complainant Jagdish Kaur. Singh, Mr. Jarnail Mr. Gurbaksh Singh and Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Advocates for Complainant Jagsher Singh. SAJJAN KUMAR & ORS versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil K. Sharma, Mr. S. A. Hashmi, Mr. Vinay Tripathi, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ambar Bhushan and Mr. C. M. Sangwan, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Vats, Advocate and Mr. Jeetin Jhala, Advocate for R-2. Mr. R. N. Sharma, Advocate for R-3. Vikram, Mr. Aditya Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Avinash, Advocate for R-4. Mr. Vikram Panwar, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Walia and Mr. Suyash Sinha, Advocates for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 861/2013 & CRL.M.B. 1406/2018 + BALWAN KHOKHAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Vats, Advocate and Mr. Jeetin Jhala, Advocate. CBI versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D. P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Advocates for CBI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL ORDER1712.2018 1. By a common judgment passed today in Crl.A.1099/2013 (State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors.) (certified copy placed below) and Connected Appeals, including the present one, this Court has partly allowed the CBIs appeal and dismissed the present appeal. The impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013 and order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts in SC No.26/2010 is affirmed.2. Additionally, in the connected appeal Crl.A.1099/2013 preferred by the CBI, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAHENDER YADAV CRL.A. 715/2013 Through: Mr. Vikram Panwar, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Walia and Mr. Suyash Sinha, Advocates. ..... Appellant versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D. P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Advocates for CBI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL ORDER1712.2018 1. By a common judgment passed today in Crl.A.1099/2013 (State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors.) (certified copy placed below) and Connected Appeals, including the present one, this Court has partly allowed the CBIs appeal and dismissed the present appeal. The impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013 and order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts in SC No.26/2010 is affirmed.2. Additionally, in the connected appeal Crl.A.1099/2013 preferred by the CBI, the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 851/2013 & CRL.M.A. 6605/2018 CAPT. BHAGMAL RETD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R. N. Sharma, Advocate CBI versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Advocates for CBI. P. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL ORDER1712.2018 1. By a common judgment passed today in Crl.A.1099/2013 (State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors.) (certified copy placed below) and Connected Appeals, including the present one, this Court has partly allowed the CBIs appeal and dismissed the present appeal. The impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013 and order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts in SC No.26/2010 is affirmed.2. Additionally, in the connected appeal Crl.A.1099/2013 preferred by the CBI, the Appellant is further convicted and sentenced for the offence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + GIRDHARI LAL CRL.A. 710/2014 Through: Mr. Aditya (DHCLSC) Advocate. ..... Appellant Vikram, Advocate with Mr. Avinash, STATE THROUGH CBI versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D. P. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Advocates for CBI. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL ORDER1712.2018 1. By a common judgment passed today in Crl.A.1099/2013 (State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors.) (certified copy placed below) and Connected Appeals, including the present one, this Court has partly allowed the CBIs appeal and dismissed the present appeal. The impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013 and order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts in SC No.26/2010 is affirmed.2. Additionally, in the connected appeal Crl.A.1099/2013 preferred by the CBI, the Appellant is further convicted and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + KRISHAN KHOKAR C B I CRL.A. 753/2013 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikram Panwar, Advocate with Mr. Vikas Walia and Mr. Suyash Sinha, Advocates. versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. Singh, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Mr. Manu Mishra & Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Advocates for CBI. P. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL ORDER1712.2018 1. By a common judgment passed today in Crl.A.1099/2013 (State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors.) (certified copy placed below) and Connected Appeals, including the present one, this Court has partly allowed the CBIs appeal and dismissed the present appeal. The impugned judgment dated 30th April 2013 and order on sentence dated 9th May 2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, North-east District, Karkardooma Courts in SC No.26/2010 is affirmed.2. Additionally, in the connected appeal Crl.A.1099/2013 preferred by the CBI, the Appellant is further convicted an...
Tag this Judgment!