Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Sanjay Chandra & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 5978-5979 of 2017, For Admission and I.R. and IA No.73474 of 2017-Application For Exemption From Filing Certified Copy and IA No.76075 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.77430 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.77805 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.77829 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.78211 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.82341 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.82792 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.82837 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.82994 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.85841 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.85847 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.85851 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.85858 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.85865 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.85870 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.86243 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.86257 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.86301 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.86305 of 2017-Clarification/Direction and IA No.86428 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87119 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87175 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87183 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87197 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87201 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87210 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87309 of 2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No.87314 of 2017-Appropriate Orders of Directions and IA No.87413 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.87452 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.89941 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90004 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90008 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90011 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90014 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90019 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90023 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90395 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90400 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90575 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90581 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90659 of 2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No.90697 of 2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No.90743 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90747 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90799 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90823 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90881 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.90999 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91001 of 2017-Clarification/Direction and IA No.91041 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91242 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91502 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91653 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91658 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91667 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91672 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91692 of 2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No.91730 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91737 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91743 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91751 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91915 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91918 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91929 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91934 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91960 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.91988 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.92123 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.93209 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.94872 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.95331 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.95334 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.95374 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.95378 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.98385 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.98390 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.98587 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.98660 of 2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No.99968 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.100788 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.101718 of 2017-Vakalatnama and Memo of Appearance and IA No.101725 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.101728 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.103667 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.103791 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.103799 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.104384 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105185 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105189 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105291 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105437 of 2017-Intervention/Impleadment and IA No.105588 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105601 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105616 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105632 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105646 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105657 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105668 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.105675 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106004 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106067 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106074 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106077 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106080 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106313 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106316 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106462 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106467 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.106473 of 2017-Intervention Application) No.107191 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.107196 of 2017-Permission To File Application For Direction and IA No.107233 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.107239 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.107245 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.107464 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.108587 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.108822 of 2017-Permission To Appear and Argue In Person and IA No.108851 of 2017-Permission To Appear and Argue In Person and IA No.109169 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.109671 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.109954 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110321 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110327 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110460 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110469 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110474 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110480 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110486 of 2017-Intervention Application and IA No.110492 of 2017-Intervention/Impleadment Application and IA No.110495 of 2017-Clarification/ Direction and IA No. 110529 of 2017-Intervention Application)
Decided On : 30-10-2017
Impleadment - Bail Application - Court directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 750 crores in the Registry of the Court as a condition for bail, and allowed negotiation with jail authorities and counsel for unencumbered properties or assets.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought interim bail after depositing a sum of Rs. 20 crores as directed by the Court. The Court allowed the bail application on the condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 750 crores in the Registry of the Court by the end of December 2017.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the bail application and directed the petitioners to deposit a substantial sum of money as a condition for bail. It also allowed negotiation with jail authorities and counsel for unencumbered properties or assets.
Issues: Interim bail, deposit amount, negotiation with jail authorities and counsel, pending proceedings against the petitioners and the company.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the substantial deposit as a condition for bail and allowed negotiation with jail authorities and counsel for unencumbered properties or assets.
Final Decision: The petitioners were granted bail on the condition that they deposit a sum of Rs. 750 crores in the Registry of the Court by the end of December 2017, and negotiation with jail authorities and counsel for unencumbered properties or assets was allowed.
ORDER :
I.A.No.110492 of 2017
This is an application for impleadment of the company. Having heard learned Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel and Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant, prayer for impleadment stands allowed.
2. However, prayer for direction shall be considered at the relevant time.
S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.5978-5979 of 2017
3. The present Special Leave Petitions assail the denial of interim bail to the petitioners. On many an occasion this Court had directed to deposit certain amount in pursuance of which the accused persons have deposited a sum of Rs. 20 crores. Be it made clear, we are not concerned with the deposit made by the petitioners and the company in other Special Leave Petitions. In other matters disbursement has been directed of the principal sum on pro rata basis. That shall be dealt with in said Special Leave Petitions. Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal learned amicus curiae shall apprise this Court when the Special Leave Petitions are taken so that accordingly appropriate orders can be passed. On being asked, Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal submitted that he has got the information from the home buyers that some of them intend to have flats and some of them want the amount refunded. According to Mr. Agrawal, the amount that is computed for refund at present may go above Rs. 2000 crores. Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel and some other learned counsel would submit that they would like to have the possession of the flats. There can be dispute over the proposition that the claims of the home buyers who intend to have possession of the flats and the other home buyers who intend to have refund deserve to be balanced. Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari would submit that if they are allowed liberty they would monetise their assets and would be able to complete the projects so that the home buyers who intend to have possession can be satisfied.
4. We made a suggestion to Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. Bhandari that the petitioners can arrange the money by executing appropriate documents within a fixed period to which a reply was given that they are not allowed to meet the lawyers more than once a week and that too without papers.
5. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the jail authorities may be directed to facilitate the visits of the persons/officers/officials of the impleaded company and the petitioners so that they can negotiate. Needless to say, the lawyers can also go and meet them with documents and papers.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length it is directed that the petitioners shall be admitted to bail subject to the condition that they shall deposit a sum of Rs. 750 crores in the Registry of this Court which shall be kept in an interest earning fixed deposit. The deposit shall be made by the end of December 2017. If the petitioners deposit the amount within the said time, liberty is granted to mention.
7. As far as the visits to the jail are concerned, the jail authorities shall facilitate the meetings of the petitioners with their officers/officials/employees at such intervals as may be intimated by the petitioners. The visit shall be made within the normal visiting hours. We have already stated that their counsel can visit the jail. The jail authorities shall also arrange a place where the petitioners will be in a position to negotiate.
8. We may further add, the prior intimation for visiting the jail is to be made before 24 hours so that the jail authorities can make appropriate arrangements.
9. The jail authorities shall also make the video conferencing facility available to the petitioners within the visiting hours so that they shall be in a position to negotiate.
10. It is hereby made clear that the petitioners are only entitled to negotiate in respect of unencumbered properties or assets.
11. If any proceeding is pending against the petitioners and the company, that may continue and the final order be passed, but no coercive steps will be taken
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
