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

2024 Supreme(Del) 953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, AMIT SHARMAM
Rich Dhamija – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT Delhi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Akshay Makhija Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae), Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam S Sharma along with Mr. Anurag Andley, Mr. Aditya Andley, Mr. Tanmay Gupta and Mr. Sahil Nagar, Advocates for family members of Dr. Rattan.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal & Mr. Abinav Kumar Arya, Advs. For State with Insp. Aditya and SI Sachin Panwar PS Fatehpur Beri, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia CGSC With Mr Shivam Sachdeva GP Ms. Hridyanshi Sharma (Adv), Mr. Mayank Bhargava, Mr. Rajdeep Saraf, Advs. with Mr. Tola Kant Pandey, Mr. M.K. Thakur, Adv. - Mr. Vishal Sood.

Table of Content
1. petition for habeas corpus filed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's observations on dr. rattan's condition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. medical evaluation ordered for dr. rattan. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. affidavits and asset disclosures ordered. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. reports on assets and health status submitted. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. continuing evaluations by medical board required. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. detailed count of dr. rattan's properties. (Para 21 , 22)
8. overview of movable assets reported. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
9. transfer of significant funds to third parties noted. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
10. legal controversies and money transfers examined. (Para 30 , 31)
11. illegality in asset management acknowledged. (Para 32 , 33)
12. court's authority under parens patriae discussed. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
13. parens patriae jurisdiction justified. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
14. appointment of guardianship committee affirmed. (Para 40 , 41)
15. conclusion and orders on case management. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition initially was filed by the Petitioner- Dr. Rich Dhamija under Article 226 of the

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