SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 827

S.N.VARIAVA, S.H.KAPADIA, A.R.LAKSHMANAN
RANJAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


ORDER

1. On 26-4-20051 we had passed an order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: (SCC p. 311, para 2)

"2. Mr Rohatgi applies and the learned Solicitor General and Mr Jethmalani support him that this Court direct appointment of a Bench to hear Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 14895 of 2000 and 14894 of 2000. The Acting Chief Justice of the Patna High Court is therefore requested to constitute a Bench consisting of Mr Justices Aftab Alam and Chandramauli Kumar Prasad to hear Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 14895 of 2000 and 14894 of 2000. The Bench is requested to dispose of these matters finally as early as possible and in any case within a period of one month from today."

2. This portion of the order was passed by consent of all the parties. Now it is claimed by the applicant in Crl. MPs Nos. 5519-20 of 2005 that the order is not by consent. However, even in this application it is admitted that his counsel had not objected to this order. After consenting and/or in any case after not objecting submissions are made before learned Acting Chief Justice of the Patna High Court that this Court had no jurisdiction to constitute a Bench and that power to constitute Benches rests only w







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top