DOCSLIB.ORG

` A3 in the Supreme Court of India Inherent Jurisdiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
` A3 in the Supreme Court of India Inherent Jurisdiction ` A3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Crl.) NO_____/2020 (Writ petition under Article 32 r/w 129 & 142 of the Constitution of India) IN THE MATTER OF: Adv. Nilesh S/o Chandrabhushan Ojha …. Petitioner (Original Alleged Contemnor No. 3) Versus Supreme Court of India through, Secretary General & Others ….Respondents PAPER BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE) THE PETITIONER IN PERSON – NILESH C. OJHA A4 INDEX RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Sr.No. Date of Proceedings Page Nos. INDEX OF PAPERS Sl. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to Re- No. which it belongs marks Part I Part II (Contents (Contents of of Paper- file alone) Book) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Court fees 1. Office report A A 2. Listing Proforma A1 A2 3. Cover page of Paper Book A3 4. Index of Record of A4 Proceedings 5. Limitation Report prepared by the Registry 6. Defect List 7. Note Sheet NS.1 to ... 8. Synopsis and List of Dates B-T 9. Writ Petition with affidavit 10. ANNEXURE:- P- 1 Copy of order dated 27.04.2020 passed by the Bench of Hon’ble Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose in SMCP 02/2019. 11. ANNEXURE:- P-2 Copy of order dated 04.05.2020 passed by the Bench of Hon’ble Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose in SMCP 02/2019. ANNEXURE:- P-3 Copy of order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the Bench of Hon’ble Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose in SMCP 02/2019. ANNEXURE:- P-4 Copy of order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the Bench of Hon’ble Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose in SMCP 02/2019. 12. Filling Memo 13. Vakalatnama and memo of appearance A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Crl.) NO_____/2020 (Writ petition under Article 32 r/w 129 & 142 of the Constitution of India) IN THE MATTER OF: Adv. Nilesh Ojha …. Petitioner (Original Alleged Contemnor No. 3) Versus Supreme Court of India through, Secretary General & Others ….Respondents OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION 1. The petition is / are within time. 2. The petition is barred by time and there is delay of _____ days in filing the same against order dated _____ and petition for condonation of ____ days delay has been filed. 3. There is delay of ____ days in refilling the petition and petition for condonation of ____ days delay in refilling has been filed. BRANCH OFFICER NEW DELHI DATED: 21.07.2020 A1 LISTING PROFORMA SECTION: WRIT The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box): Central Act : Constitution of India Section : Articles 32 and 129, 142 Central Rule : N.A. Rule No (s) : N.A. State Act : N.A. Section : N.A. State Rule : N.A. Rule No (s) : N.A. Impugned Interim Order : N.A. Impugned Final Order/Decree : YES High Court : N.A. Names of Judges : N.A. Tribunal/Authority : (Name) N.A. Nature of matter : Criminal (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1 : Adv. Nilesh C. Ojha E-Mail ID: nileshojha79@ gmail.com (b) Mobile phone number: + 91- 9892915093 (a) Respondent No.1: Supreme Court of India through, Secretary General & Others (b) E-Mail ID: N.A.. (c) Mobile Phone Number: N.A. (a) Main category classification: 18, Ordinary Criminal matters (b) Sub classification: 1807, others A2 Note to be listed before: N.A. 6(a). Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any & case details: No similar matter is disposed of (b). Similar pending matter with case details: No similar matter is pending 7. Criminal Matters: (a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes ☑ No. (b)FIR No. N.A. Date : N.A. (c) Police Station: N.A. (d)Sentenced Awarded: YES (e) Sentenced Under gone: N.A. 8. Land Acquisition Matters: N.A. (a) Date of Section 4 notification: N.A. (b) Date of Section 6 notification: N.A. (c) Date of Section 17 notification: N.A. 9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N.A. 10. Special Category (first Petitioner/Appellant only): N.A. 65 years SC/ST Disabled 11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): N.A. Date: 21.07.200 PETITIONER- IN- PERSON B SYNOPSIS 1. The petitioner is filing this Writ Petition under Article 32 r/w 129, 142 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the conviction and sentence under contempt passed against him by the Ld. 2- Judge Bench [CORAM: Shri. Justice Deepak Gupta and Shri. Justice Aniruddha Bose] of this Hon’ble Court [hereinafter called as Trial Court] vide order 27.04.2020 and 04.05.2020 in SMCP (Cri.) 02 of 2019, in the matter between Re: Vijay Kurle and Others, where the Petitioner is sentenced to 3 months imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- and is directed to surrender before the Respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary General of the Supreme Court on or before 25th August, 2020. 2. The petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as the order of conviction is passed by the 2-Judge Bench by exercising power under Article 129 of the Constitution. Therefore, as per law laid down in M. S. Ahlawat Vs. State (2000) 1 SCC 27 and further clarified by Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra (2001) 4 SCC 388 in para 42 to 47, the only remedy is to file writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. There is no other alternate and efficacious remedy. 3. The impugned order is challenged on following main grounds; I) The order is vitiated as it is passed in wilful disregard of the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Court in P.N.Duda’s case (1988) 3 SCC 167, taking a view that, it as an obiter and not a binding precedent. In fact, the said judgment is made a binding precedent by the Full Bench in Bal Thackeray’s case (2005) 1 SCC 254, and therefore order is without jurisdiction and void. II) The order taking cognizance by the Judge in his own case is against the law laid down by Constitution Bench in the case of Supreme Court Advocate On Record Association (2016) 5 SCC 808, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, and therefore, the proceedings are without jurisdiction C and cannot be validated by any subsequent orders and hence, nullity, void ab-initio and vitiated as passed by the Coram-Non-Judice as ruled in Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, Deepak Kumar Prahladka Vs. Chief Justice Prabha Shanker Mishra (2004) 5 SCC 217. III) Conviction is vitiated as the conviction is for a charge which is contrary and against the Court’s own order dated 02.09.2019 and 09.12.2019 and therefore, it is vitiated in view of law laid down in Lalu Prasad Yadav’s case (2017) 8 SCC 1, R.S. Sherawat Vs. Rajeev Malhotra (2018) 10 SCC 574 and Bhupesh Deb Gupta Vs. State (1979) 1 SCC 87. IV) The order punishing the petitioner for a charge of conspiring with alleged contemnor No.4 Mathews Nedumpara, which was already dropped by the order dated 02.09.2019 and 09.12.2019, is violative of doctrine of Double Jeopardy and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution and section 300 of Cr.P.C. and also against the law laid down in Sudhir Vasudera (2014) 3 SCC 373, Lalu Prasad Yadav (2017) 8 SCC 1 and therefore vitiates the entire conviction and sentence and makes the petitioner entitled for compensation. V) The Conviction is vitiated as it is based on per-incuriam findings in para 82 of the impugned judgment that, if Judge commits any blatant wrong, illegality or irregularity in passing a judgment then the only remedy is to challenge such order and not to seek action by filing a complaint. Such observation is against the law laid down by full bench in K.K. Dhawan’s case (1993) 2 SCC 56 and Bramha Prakash Sharma AIR 1954 SC 10. VI) The conviction is vitiated as it is based on per-incuriam findings in para 48 and para 86 of the impugned judgment that, no party can attribute motive to a Judge or question the bonafides of the Judge or to raise question with regard to the competence of the Judge. Such observations D are against the binding precedent of Constitution Bench in Re: C. S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344, Addl. District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ (2015) 1 SCC 799, Baradkanta Mishra(1974)1 SCC 374, K. Veeraswamy’s case (1991) 3 SCC 655. VII) The Conviction is vitiated as it is based on per-incuriam findings in para 67 of the judgment and order that, the lawyer cannot claim right to file complaint against a Judge. This observation is against the law laid down in i] Bramha Prakash Sharma, AIR 1954 SC 10, ii] Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344,iii] R.K.Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281, iv] R. Muthukrishnan AIR 2019 SC 849. VIII) The Conviction is vitiated as it is based on per-incuriam findings in para 66 of the impugned judgment that, even if the Judge of Superior Court acts in wilful disregard and defiance of binding precedents of the higher benches, he will not be subject to contempt proceedings at the behest of an individual/lawyer. This finding is against the law laid down by Constitution Bench judgment in Re: C.S. Karnan (2017)7 SCC 1. IX) Order is vitiated in view of law laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra (2005) 2 SCC 673, for highly illegal observations by placing reliance on the editorial note of an author of a book and treating the same as a statute in order to reject the law and ratio laid down by the binding precedents of Full Bench and Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court and placing reliance on overruled judgments of smaller benches.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of India [ It Will Be Appreciated If the Learned Advocates on Record Do Not Seek Adjournment in the Matters Listed
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES ON RECORD DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE ALL THE COURTS IN THE CAUSE LIST ] DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 01-05-2019 CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA (TIME : 10:30 AM) 108 C.A. No. 7823/2014 IV-A M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES.LTD AND ANR. M. P. DEVANATH Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. B. KRISHNA PRASAD [ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ] 108. 1 Connected SLP(C) No. 2014/2009 XII-A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS B. KRISHNA PRASAD Versus M/S. GLOBAL TOBACCO PRODUCTS SAURABH MISHRA 108. 2 Connected SLP(C) No. 16445/2010 IV-A SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND ORS. ANIL KATIYAR Versus GHODAWAT INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. BINA GUPTA 108. 3 Connected T.C.(C) No. 20/2010 XVI-A M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. AND ANR. S. S. SHROFF Versus UNION OF INDIA 108. 4 Connected T.C.(C) No. 22/2010 XVI-A M/S. GLOBAL TOBACCO PRODUCTS BINA GUPTA Versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS. UGRA SHANKAR PRASAD 108. 5 Connected T.C.(C) No. 23-24/2010 XVI-A CHANDAN FRAGRANCE P. LTD. AND ANR. JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA Versus U.O.I. AND ORS. 108. 6 Connected T.C.(C) No. 34/2010 XVI-A M/S. GHODWAT INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD BINA GUPTA DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 01-05-2019 CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT Versus SECRETARY TO FINANCE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Fortnight March 2021 Edition, Volume
    1 FOREWORD More has been said about the writing of lawyers and judges than of any other group, except, of course, poets and novelists. The difference is that while the latter has usually been admired for their writing, the public has almost always damned lawyers and judges for theirs. If this state of affairs has changed in recent times, it is only in that many lawyers and judges have now joined the rest of the world is complaining about the quality of legal prose. My best wishes to all these student contributors, for their future endeavors. My best wishes and assurance to the readers that this will add a lot to the knowledge after reading this perfect case compilation. It’s not just for the legal fraternity but for anyone who has an interest in the field of law. By Vrinda Khanna & Nandini Mangla 2 PREFACE All India Legal Forum is replenished with information to give students a ready reference to the various areas of legal issues and news. All India Legal Forum is a team of more than 400 law students across the country to tackle basic problems which a legal researcher faces in day to day life, putting forward the basic things needed for researching and drafting. The All India Legal forum strives at providing a valuable contribution to contemporary legal issues and development. The organization seeks to bring out a platform to provide resourceful insights on law-related topics for the ever-growing legal fraternity. All India Legal Forum doesn't just publish blogs but also guides the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges of the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts
    AS ON 01/06/2021 JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND THE HIGH COURTS (List of Judges arranged according to date of initial appointment) [Sanctioned Strength of Judges of High Court also includes the Chief Justice of High Court] AS ON 01/06/2021 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Sanctioned Judge Strength: 34 (List of Judges arranged according to date of appointment) Sl. Name of the Judge Date of Date of REMARKS No. S/Shri Justice appointment Retirement [Parent High Court] 1 NUTHALAPATI VENKATA RAMANA 17/02/2014 26/08/2022 CJI W.E.F. 24.04.2021 ANDHRA PRADESH 2 ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN 07/07/2014 12/08/2021 BAR 3 UDAY UMESH LALIT 13/08/2014 08/11/2022 BAR 4 AJAY MANIKRAO KHANWILKAR 13/05/2016 29/07/2022 BOMBAY 5 DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD 13/05/2016 10/11/2024 BOMBAY 6 ASHOK BHUSHAN 13/05/2016 04/07/2021 ALLAHABAD 7 LAVU NAGESWARA RAO 13/05/2016 07/06/2022 BAR 8 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL 17/02/2017 25/12/2023 DELHI 9 S. ABDUL NAZEER 17/02/2017 04/01/2023 KARANTAKA 10 NAVIN SINHA 17/02/2017 18/08/2021 PATNA 11 KUMARI INDIRA BANERJEE 07/08/2018 23/09/2022 CALCUTTA 12 VINEET SARAN 07/08/2018 10/05/2022 ALLAHABAD 13 KUTTIYIL MATHEW JOSEPH 07/08/2018 16/06/2023 KERALA 14 HEMANT GUPTA 02/11/2018 16/10/2022 PUNJAB & HARYANA 15 RAMAYYAGARI SUBHASH REDDY 02/11/2018 04/01/2022 TELANGANA 16 MUKESHKUMAR RASIKBHAI SHAH 02/11/2018 15/05/2023 GUJARAT 17 AJAY RASTOGI 02/11/2018 17/06/2023 RAJASTHAN 18 DINESH MAHESHWARI 18/01/2019 14/05/2023 RAJASTHAN 19 SANJIV KHANNA 18/01/2019 13/05/2025 DELHI 20 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI 24/05/2019 23/11/2025 BOMBAY 21 SURYA KANT 24/05/2019 09/02/2027 PUNJAB & HARYANA 22 ANIRUDDHA BOSE 24/05/2019 10/04/2024 CALCUTTA 23 AJJIKUTTIRA SOMAIAH BOPANNA 24/05/2019 19/05/2024 KARNATAKA 24 KRISHNA MURARI 23/09/2019 08/07/2023 ALLAHABAD 25 SHRIPATHI RAVINDRA BHAT 23/09/2019 20/10/2023 DELHI 26 V.
    [Show full text]
  • NPAC Newsletter Dispute Resolutions December 2020
    The Bi-Monthly Newsletter of the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre Volume 14 IssueIssue 25 April October 2021 2018 Message to the Readers As is well established and often repeated, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete code in itself. It follows that the remedies contemplated by invocation of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution would only have a limited application in this area. However, as we all know, in law there is hardly a rule without an exception. Following cases are some interesting exceptions to the above-mentioned rule: GOVERNING COUNCIL In Sanjana M. Wig vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Justice M.N.Venkatachaliah Former Chief Justice of India (2005) 8 SCC 242, a two judge Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking Soli J. Sorabjee through Justice Mr. SB Sinha, observed: Former Attorney General of India K.K.Venugopal Attorney General of India, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India “12. The principal question which arises for consideration isas to Justice AP Shah, whether a discretionary jurisdiction would be refused tobe exercised Former Chairman, Law Commission of India and Former Chief Justice of the High Courts of Madras and New Delhi solely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy which is B.S. Raghavan, I.A.S. (Retd.), more efficacious... Former Advisor to the United Nations (FAO) Iqbal Chagla Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court 13. However, access to justice by way of public law remedy would not T.S. Krishnamurthy Former Chief Election Commissioner of India be denied when a lis involves public law character and when the BOARD OF DIRECTORS forum chosen by the parties would not be in a position to grant S.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Chambers of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nv Rama
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LIST OF CURATIVE & REVIEW PETITIONS (BY CIRCULATION) IN THE CHAMBERS OF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 12-05-2020 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD (TIME : 1:05 PM) SNo. Case No. Petitioner / Respondent 1001 CURATIVE PET(R) No. SANJAY SINGH AND ORS. 17/2020 in R.P.(Crl.) No. 99/2019 in SLP(Crl) No. 6700-6701/2016 II-A Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR IN R.P.(Crl.) No. - 99/2019, IN SLP(Crl) No. - 6700/2016, IA No. 34875/2020 - APPLICATION FOR LISTING CURATIVE PETITION IN OPEN COURT IA No. 34871/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 34867/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES NEW DELHI 09-05-2020 11:05:39 ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA LIST OF CURATIVE & REVIEW PETITIONS (BY CIRCULATION) IN THE CHAMBERS OF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 12-05-2020 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE (TIME : 1:10 PM) SNo. Case No. Petitioner / Respondent 1002 CURATIVE PET(C) No. OM PRAKASH KHATRI 37/2020 in R.P.(C) No. 1965/2019 in C.A. No. 5069/2019 XI-A Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COCHIN IN R.P.(C) No.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawyers' Musings
    The Student Lawyers’ Musings Vol. 5, Issue I December 2018 Magazine Committee Advisor Designers Ebad Ur Rahman Dr. Jagan Mohan Rao Subham Kumar Dalara An ICFAI Law School Publication Contents Am I taking Advantage of the Digital Revolution? -Hemanth Ram Reddy Corporate Governance in India -Rashmi Jain Cruel Reality of the Modern World-Domestic Violence -Savitri Varanasi Sabarimala-A Splintered Reason under Law -Dr. M. Madhuri Irene Lament for India‘s Daughters -G.S.S. Neeharika Hon‘ble Chief Justice of India Shri Ranjan Gogoi Legal Eagles -Subham Kumar Dalara Forever -Disha Roy You Question Me Every Instant -Mirza Ghalib -Ebad Ur Rahman Arcane of Seasons -G.S.S. Neeharika Being in ICFAI -Shailja Mishra -Hansika Om Krishna and his Butter -M.S. Radhika AM I TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION? - Hemanth Ram Reddy Hemanth is a first year student of BBA-LLB. He is very passionate about movie direction and story writing. He has a special interest for literature. He hopes to con- tinue his studies in the area of films. With every click, every tweet, every share, am I being exploited or am I taking ad- vantage of the digital revolution? This is the question I kept asking myself as I read Astra Taylor's "The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age." Taylor makes a thorough case that the technological advances we've been told constitute progress — that anyone can start a blog, that we can easily keep up with our friends (and frenemies) on Facebook, that Twitter can foment democratic revolution — are actually masking and, in some cases, exacerbating social ills that have long plagued our society, especially its most creative members.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of India [ It Will Be Appreciated If
    1 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES ON RECORD DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE ALL THE COURTS IN THE CAUSE LIST ] DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 14-12-2020 Court No. 1 (Hearing Through Video Conferencing) HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN (TIME : 11:30 AM) 7 C.A. No. 3340-3342/2016 III COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX MUMBAI 1 B. KRISHNA PRASAD[P-1] Versus DEPOSIT INSURANCE AND CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION MUMBAI R. PARTHASARATHY, [R-1] IA No. 105074/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION Court No. 2 (Hearing Through Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE (TIME : 10:30 AM) 20 SLP(C) No. 11917/2020 IX K.K. ENTERPRISES P. S. SUDHEER Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ORS. {Mention Memo} IA No. 101634/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Court No. 3 (Hearing Through Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA 2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH (TIME : 10:30 AM) 15 SLP(C) No. 12879/2020 XV VIVEK SWAMI VISHAL PRASAD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. {Mention Memo} FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.110699/2020- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT Court No. 4 (Hearing Through Video Conferencing) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN 301 W.P.(C) No.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT JUDGES ROASTER W.E.F. 04.01.2021 Sr
    SUPREME COURT JUDGES ROASTER W.E.F. 04.01.2021 Sr. Important Subject Judge NO. Category 1 Direct Tax Matters Hon’ble CJI Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan 2 Indirect Tax Matters Hon’ble CJI Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud 3 Letter Petition & PIL Matters Hon’ble CJI and Social Justice matters 4 Election Matters Hon’ble CJI 5 Company Law, MRTP, TRAI, Hon’ble CJI SEBI, IDRAI & RBI matters Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao 6 Arbitration Matters Hon’ble CJI 7 SLPs challenging Arbitration Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana matters Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee 8 Habeas Corpus Matters Hon’ble CJI 9 Criminal Matters Hon’ble CJI Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee 10 Contempt of Court Matters Hon’ble CJI Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan 11 Matter pertaining to Hon’ble CJI appointments etc of Constitutional Functionaries 12 Matter pertaining to Hon’ble CJI Statutory Appointments & Appointment of other Law officers 13 Matters Pertaining to Judicial Hon’ble CJI Officers Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Fortnight February 2021 Edition, Volume
    1 FOREWORD More has been said about the writing of lawyers and judges than of any other group, except, of course, poets and novelists. The difference is that while the latter has usually been admired for their writing, the public has almost always damned lawyers and judges for theirs. If this state of affairs has changed in recent times, it is only in that many lawyers and judges have now joined the rest of the world is complaining about the quality of legal prose. Our best wishes to all these student contributors, for their future endeavors. Our best wishes and assurance to the readers that this will add a lot to the knowledge after reading this perfect case compilation. It’s not just for the legal fraternity but for anyone who has an interest in the field of law. Vrinda Khanna& Nandini Mangla (Associate) All India Legal Forum 2 PREFACE All India Legal Forum is replenished with information to give students a ready reference to the various areas of legal issues and news. All India Legal Forum is a team of more than 400 law students across the country to tackle basic problems which a legal researcher faces in day to day life, putting forward the basic things needed for researching and drafting. The All India Legal forum strives at providing a valuable contribution to contemporary legal issues and development. The organization seeks to bring out a platform to provide resourceful insights on law-related topics for the ever-growing legal fraternity. All India Legal Forum doesn't just publish blogs but also guides the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of India [ It Will Be Appreciated If the Learned Advocates on Record Do Not Seek Adjournment in the Matters Listed
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES ON RECORD DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE ALL THE COURTS IN THE CAUSE LIST ] DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 15-11-2019 COURT NO. : 4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (TIME : 10:30 AM) 46 MA 2232/2018 in C.A. No. 5808/2011 IV-A THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE NIKHIL JAIN Versus M/S KUSHALCHAND AND CO. IN C.A. No. - 5808/2011, IA No. 108986/2018 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS COURT NO. : 7 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI (TIME : 10:30 AM) 36 C.A. No. 662/2019 XVII-A LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AYUSH SHARMA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE B. KRISHNA PRASAD[R-1] 38 Diary No. 6014-2019 XVII-A COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX GURGAON B. KRISHNA PRASAD Versus M/S MAYANSH RESOURCES NIKILESH RAMACHANDRAN[R-1] IA No.40981/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.40985/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.40983/2019-STAY APPLICATION COURT NO. : 13 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY (TIME : 10:30 AM) 1 Diary No. 36255-2019 XVII COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX GURGAON II B. KRISHNA PRASAD Versus M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. CHARANYA LAKSHMIKUMARAN[CAVEAT][ CAVEAT] IA No.165576/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.165577/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.165575/2019-STAY APPLICATION COURT NO.
    [Show full text]
  • (Civil) No 494 of 2012 Justice Ks Puttaswamy
    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012 JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. ..Petitioners VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..Respondents WITH T.C. (CIVIL) NO 151 OF 2013 T.C. (CIVIL) NO 152 OF 2013 W.P.(CIVIL) NO 833 OF 2013 W.P.(CIVIL) NO 829 OF 2013 W.P.(CIVIL) NO 932 OF 2013 CONMT. PET. (CIVIL) NO 144 OF 2014 IN W.P.(C) NO. 494/2012 T.P.(CIVIL) NO 313 OF 2014 T.P.(CIVIL) NO 312 OF 2014 S.L.P(CRL.) NO.2524/2014 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.37/2015 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.220/2015 1 CONMT. PET. (C)NO.674/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.829/2013 T.P.(CIVIL)NO.921/2015 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.470/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.444/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.608/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.797/2016 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.844/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P. (C) NO. 342/ 2017 AND WITH W.P.(C) NO.000372/2017 J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are : A The reference B Decision in M P Sharma C Decision in Kharak Singh D Gopalan doctrine: fundamental rights as isolated silos E Cooper and Maneka: Interrelationship between rights F Origins of privacy G Natural and inalienable rights H Evolution of the privacy doctrine in India I The Indian Constitution • Preamble • Jurisprudence on dignity 2 • Fundamental Rights cases • No waiver of Fundamental Rights • Privacy as intrinsic to freedom and liberty • Discordant Notes : (i) ADM Jabalpur (ii) Suresh Koushal J India’s commitments under International law K Comparative
    [Show full text]
  • CONFIDENTIAL to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Chief Justice of India Lord Bingham in His Book
    C O N F I D E N T I A L March 21, 2018 To Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Chief Justice of India Lord Bingham in his book ‘The Rule of Law’ said that “there are countries in the world where all judicial decisions find favour with the powers that be, but they are probably not places where any of us would wish to live”. Let us also not live where Bingham loathed to live. We, the judges of the Supreme Court of India, are being accused of ceding our independence and our institutional integrity to the Executive’s incremental encroachment. The Executive is always impatient, and brooks no disobedience even of the judiciary if it can. Attempts were always made to treat the Chief Justices as the Departmental Heads in the Secretariat. So much for our “independence and preeminence” as a distinct State organ. Someone from Bangalore has already beaten us in the race to the bottom. The Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court has been more than willing to do the Executive bidding, behind our back. I read with dismay and disbelief the “confidential report” sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice by Shri Dinesh Maheswari, the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. To begin with, it was unasked for. Second, it is uncalled for. The confidential report blatantly records the impropriety of the executive directly contacting the High Court to reassess a collegium recommendation of the Supreme Court. It is a moot proposition that any Principal & Sessions Judge is the administrative head of the district he works in.
    [Show full text]