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

2024 Supreme(SC) 566

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Plaintiff(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanjay Basu, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv. Mr. Adit Pujari, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Arshya Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Ms. Soumya Saxena, Adv. Mr. Archit Adlakha, Adv. Mr. Aditya Raj Pandey, Adv.
For the Defendant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Karthikay Agrawal, Adv. Mrs. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

INDEX

Sl. No.

Particulars

I.

INTRODUCTION

II.

SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT

III.

SUBMISSIONS OF PLAINTIFF

IV.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

a. Supreme Court Rules, 2013

b. Article 131 of the Constitution

V.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

a. State of Bihar v. Union of India

b. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India

VI.

CONSIDERATION

a. Reading of the Plaint

b. Scheme of the DSPE Act

c. Power of superintendence of the Central Government

d. Interpretation of the term "subject to the provisions of this Constitution"

e. Suppression of material fact

f. Cause of action of the suit

VII.

CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION:

1. The present suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking the following reliefs:

    i. "Pass a Judgment and Decree declaring that registration of cases by the Defendant after withdrawal of Notification under Section 6 of the DSPE Act by the Plaintiff is unconstitutional and non-est;

    ii. Pass Judgment and Decree thereby restraining and forbearing the Defendant from registering any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences c

          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