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

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Mani Shandly – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Arjun Bhandari and Mr. B.K. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.—Temperance is the hallmark of judicial authority. The exercise of judicial authority is not ‘show of strength’ but a duty to be performed with humility and yet firmness. This cardinal principle seems to have been lost while passing orders in the present case.

2. The petitioners, both ladies, have been charged under sections 347/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by the MCD on the allegation of misuse of property consisting ground floor of property bearing No. B-23, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi in the capacity of the owner/occupier. The criminal complaint No. 1291/2001 is filed by the MCD, which was pending in the Court of the learned MM. The offence is a bailable offence punishable with simple imprisonment, which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000.00 or with both, it is the case of the petitioners that they were only employees working in the said premises at the relevant time and had been falsely implicated on the inspection carried out since the owner/accused No. 1 was not present in the premises. The complaint was filed in the year 2001 and the misuse is stated to h

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