BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE SEVEN JUDGES BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE AND ORS. - (1954) 12 SC CK 0004 WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMMARISED BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH IN THE CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY BANGALORE VS. KHAN SAHEB ABDUL SHUKOOR ETC. - (1961) 02 SC CK 0026, QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE PERMITTING THE ACCUSED TO INTERVENE IN AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (FOR SHORT ''CR.P.C.''. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT LEARNED JUDGE HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. THE ERROR IS PATENTLY APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND HENCE CAN BE CORRECTED BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.


Mrs. Laxmi Mukul Gupta Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2018) 01 BOM CK 0111



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge.

Image
All India Union Bank Officer Vs. Brajeshwar Sharma, (2020) 09 MAD CK 0001 ( Madras High Court has Ruled & Declared that the doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation and once the Writ Appeal is partly allowed and an order has been passed modifying the order of the Single Judge, the latter merges with the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Court expressed the view that once the order of the Single Judge has merged with the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal, if it is felt that the order has been violated or disobeyed, a Contempt Petition can be maintained only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge. )
Read more

DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 167 OF THE CR.P.C. AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 43(D)(2) OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967

Image
Khalid Vs. State (GOVT. Of NCT Of Delhi), (2020) 09 DEL CK 0033 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the decision to extend the judicial custody of an accused seriously affects the accused and the principles of natural justice clearly require that such an accused be granted the right to oppose the passing of any such order. Clearly for the right to be more meaningful, it would also be apposite to disclose the detailed reasons for seeking such an order which extends the time for completion of investigation accruing out of the proviso to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. as modified by Section 43(D)(2) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 for investigations under UAPA. However, the rights ofthe accused in this regard have to be necessarily curtailed by the necessity to conceal such reasons from the accused and not make it public. This is because,at this stage, the investigation is incomplete and disclosing the manner in which investigation has proceeded and ...
Read more

Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.

Image
  Juhi Chawla & Ors Vs. Science And Engineering Research Board & Ors; (2021) 06 DEL CK 0035 Important Judgement of Hon,ble Delhi High Court imposing cost of Rs.20 Lacs on the Plaintiffs for abuse of process of law and for disruption of court proceedings. In addition the Hon’ble High Court also initiated Contempt Proceedings against the persons who disrupted court proceedings inspite of repeated warnings.
Read more