RANJAN GOGOI, DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJIV KHANNA
NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
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
M/s. Bombay Science and Research Education Institute v. The State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy
Ms. Swaran Sabharwal v. Commissioner of Police
Bharat Overseas Bank v. Minu Publication
State of Gujarat v. Utility Users’ Welfare Association
U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.