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

2019 Supreme(SC) 1066

RANJAN GOGOI, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA
NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) [SLP 1513/11 & SLP 4078/11]:Bharat Sangal, Babita Kushwaha, Manjula Gupta, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s) [Crl.A.1122/11]:Fauzia Shakil, M. Shoeb Alam, Ujjwal Singh, Gautam Prabhakar, Mojahid Karim Khan, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s) [SLP 891-94/11 & SLP 3958/13]:Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s) [SLP 4360/13]:Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocate
For the Petitioner(s) [SLP 6420/14]:Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, Jyoti Mishra, Sukumar, Bheem Pratap Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, P. K. Manohar, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Aman Vachher, Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, Madhurima Mridul, Anshu Vachher, Arun Nagar, Rajshree Dubey, M. K. Dua, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Aastha Mehta, Nishant Rao, Rajesh Kumar, E. C. Agrawala, Sangeeta Kumar, Sonia Mathur, Sachin Sharma, Rachna Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates

JUDGMENT

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

2. A Division Bench of this Court (Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra, JJ.) vide order dated November 18, 2014, noticing that the issues that arise have far reaching and serious consequences, had referred the aforesaid appeals to be heard by a Bench of at least three Judges. After obtaining appropriate directions from Hon’ble the Chief Justice, these appeals have been listed before the present Bench.

3. For the sake of convenience, we have treated the Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1513 of 2011, filed by Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd., as the lead case. This appeal arises from judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated November 29, 2010 wherein the majority judgment has held that the expression ‘any property’ used in sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) does not include immovable property and, consequently, a police officer investigating a criminal case cannot take custody of and seize any immovable property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of a

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