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

2019 Supreme(SC) 1259

RANJAN GOGOI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K. M. JOSEPH
Yashwant Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation Through its Director – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):K.K. Venugopal, AG Tushar Mehta, SG R. Balasubramanian, Ankur Talwar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukul Rohatgi, Ruchi Kohli, Dr. Ashutosh Garg, Alok Shukla, Manohar Lal Sharma, Petitioner-in-person Suman, Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Rajesh Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sunil Fernandes, Avishkar Singhvi, Priyansha Indra Sharma, Nikhil Bhalla, Varun Chopra, Muhammad Ali Khan, Udayan Verma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Debasis Misra, Vishaal S. Jogdand, Suhas Kadam, Pareena Swarup, Binay Kumar Jha, Jagdev, R.C. Paul kanakraj, Dr. Sanatan Ray Choudhari, Nanita Sharma, M.K. Vinayak, Manav, R. Sharath, Alpana Sharma, Samsuddin Khan Choudhari, Jay Prakash Somani, Rajnish Kumar, Meera Bhatia, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

(I.A. No. 63168/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., I.A. No.71678/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and I.A. No. 66253/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

1. Allowed subject to just exception.

MA 58/2019 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 225/2018 (PIL-W) (I.A. No.182576/2018 – CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN THE JUDGMENT)

2. The Union of India has filed the present application seeking correction of what they claim to be an error, in two sentences in para 25 of the judgment delivered by this Court on 14.12.2018. This error is stated to be on account of a misinterpretation of some sentences in a note handed over to this Court in a sealed cover.

3. The Court had asked vide order dated 31.10.2018 to be apprised of the details/cost as also any advantage, which may have accrued on that account, in the procurement of the 36 Rafale fighter jets. The confidential note in the relevant portions stated as under:

    “The Government has already shared the pricing details with the CAG. The report of the CAG is examined by the PAC. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before the Parliament and in public domain.”

4. It is the submission of the learned Attorney General that the first


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