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

2003 Supreme(All) 870

M.KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI
SHIV PATTI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Yogesh Agarwal

M. KATJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition reveals a startling state of affairs where acts of wanton behaviour committed by persons in high authority accused of gross criminal assault and trespass are not only not punished but are rewarded with conferment of rights by authorities.

( 2 ) THIS petition was filed nearly four years ago. On 26. 4. 1999 this Court granted standing counsel one month to file counter-affidavit. By that order notice was also issued to respondent nos. 5 to 8 returnable at an early date. On 10. 5. 1999 registered A. D. notices were issued to respondent Nos. 5 to 8 fixing 28. 5. 1999. There is an office report dated 16. 7. 1999, which states that in compliance to the Court order dated 26. 4. 1999 notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 by registered A. D. post fixing 28. 5. 1999. Neither the acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has been received back after service. The same is the office report dated 22. 8. 1999. The court then ordered on 24. 8. 2000 the notices to be published through publication in two news papers Dainik Jagran and Rastriya Sahara, and they were published accordingly. Yet no counter-affidavit has been filed.

( 3 ) IN view of Explanation II of















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