Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 6730

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN, JJ
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
SRI DARSHAN ETC. – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.516-522/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR, Mr. P Prasanna Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv., Mr. Sachin, Adv., Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv., Mr. Manthan Dayanad, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv., Mr. Ravindera Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Ishan Roy Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Madhav B. Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Rahul K. Reddy, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Tanisha Kaushal, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar S, Adv.

The court emphasized procedural rights regarding written submissions and exemptions in appeals.

Headnote:(A) Relevant laws and sections cited: Not specified. Court discussed the exemption from filing official translation of documents. Before the court, arguments were presented by Senior counsel for the state and respondents possibly connected to criminal procedure and admissions of written submissions. (Paras 1-8)

(B) The essential legal principle centers around the rights of the parties to present written submissions effectively within a specified timeframe.

(C) Facts of the case involve multiple petitions for special leave to appeal concerning decisions made by the High Court of Karnataka. Findings of Court assert the allowance of submissions and procedural steps taken. Issues addressed were the presentation and acceptance of submissions within the given timeframe. Ratio Decidendi outlines the court's reasoning on managing exemptions and submission timelines.

Result: Judgment reserved.

Table of Content
1. court addressed procedural compliance for written submissions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties permitted to file timely submissions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court reserved judgment after hearing. (Para 8)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Application seeking exemption from filing official translation of the Annexures is allowed.

2. Arguments concluded.

3. Judgment reserved.

4. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh has already filed his written submissions.

5. Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has also filed his written submissions.

6. Ms. Sanjana Saddy, the learned AOR appearing for the Respondent No.5 has also filed her written submissions. As prayed for, she is permitted to file the latest written submissions in the matter. She may do so within a period of one week from today.

7. So far as other accused persons are concerned, their respective learned counsel may file their respective written submissions not more than three pages within a period of one week from today.

8. A soft copy of the written submissions shall also be forwarded to writtensubmissions.jbp@gmail.com.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 6730

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN, JJTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA – AppellantVersusSRI DARSHAN ETC. – RespondentPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.516-522/2025

The court emphasized procedural rights regarding written submissions and exemptions in appeals.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN, JJ
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
SRI DARSHAN ETC. – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.516-522/2025