Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha, AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
National Human Rights Commission - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondents
Writ Petition(Crl.) No. 109/2003.
Decided On : 17-10-2003
ORDER :
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following:
W.P. (Crl.) No. 109/2003
1. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat on 7th October, 2003. The said affidavit discloses that the State has moved to the High Court for amending the criminal appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused and the Court has permitted the appeal to be amended. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we feel that in this case an Amicus Curiae is required to be appointed. We request Shri Harish N. Salve, Sr. to appear in this case as Amicus Curiae which he has accepted. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, -on-Record is also appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.
2. List this matter as also TP (Crl.) Nos. 194-202/2003, WP (Crl.) No. D17953/2003, SLP (Crl.) No.3770/2003, SLP (C) No. 7951/2002 and WP (Crl.) Nos. 11-15/2003 on 17th October, 2003. Counter affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 to 22 in SLP(C) No. 3770/2003 be taken on record.
3. Let a complete set of paperbooks be given to the learned Amicus Curiae within 48 hours by the State of Gujarat.
WP (C) No. 221/2002, WP (Crl.) Nos. 37-52/2002 and WP (C) No. 530/2002.
4. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General who appears for the State of Gujarat, prays for and is allowed six weeks' time to file counter affidavit in these matters. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
5. List these matters after eight weeks.
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
