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

2005 Supreme(Del) 469

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUN BHARDWAJ, D.C.MATHUR, P.P.Malhotra, SIDHARTH MRIDUL, VINIT MALHOTRA

B. C. PATEL, CJ.

( 1 ) THE petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint a special commissioner to expeditiously investigate the offences disclosed in the petition.

( 2 ) AT the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has no personal knowledge in the matter. Some one has come out with some report in the newspaper and the petitioner is seeking the reliefs on the basis of such a report. The matter was placed for admission initially on 12. 12. 2001 when a notice was issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 only and no notice was issued to the rest of the respondents. On 4. 2. 2004, the petitioner requested for deleting the name of respondent No. 4 and accordingly the name of respondent No. 4 was deleted from the array of parties.

( 3 ) IT is also required to be noted that before the present petition was filed by the petitioner, a charge sheet was filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, chennai wherein it was pointed out that a case was registered on 7. 8. 1993 against shri M. L. Sitaraman, Proprietor of M/s. Southern Art, 10d, First East M








































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