Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Order Set Aside by Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod - The main point is that both Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod have set aside certain orders, including those passed by High Courts and lower courts, in specific cases. They have quashed impugned orders and directed trial courts or authorities to reconsider proceedings or pass fresh orders, emphasizing adherence to legal principles and procedural correctness. ["IND_2019_2753_2016"] ["IND_2019_2753_2016"] ["IND_2019_2753_2016"] ["IND_2019_2753_2016"]
Legal Precedents and Principles - The judges have consistently relied on previous legal precedents, including decisions from the Madras High Court (e.g., B. Gajendran) and Allahabad High Court (e.g., Kanchan Upadhyay), to support their orders. They have also emphasized that orders passed without proper consideration or in violation of procedural law should be set aside. ["Ankita Hiren Jhaveri VS Hiren Udayan Jhaveri - Gujarat"] ["ANKITA HIREN JHAVERI Vs HIREN UDAYAN JHAVERI - Gujarat"]
Specific Case Examples - In multiple instances, orders such as interim injunctions, criminal judgments, or appellate decisions have been set aside to ensure justice, often citing procedural lapses or errors in original orders. For example, a criminal appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, reinstating the trial court's decision ["IND_2019_2753_2016"], and another case involved setting aside an ex parte decree ["IND_2019_2753_2016"].
Judicial Approach - The approach involves careful examination of the orders, adherence to constitutional provisions, and ensuring that orders are not passed in violation of legal standards. The courts have shown a consistent pattern of setting aside orders that are found to be unjust, procedurally flawed, or contrary to law.
Conclusion - Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod have actively set aside various orders from High Courts and lower courts, emphasizing the importance of legal correctness, procedural fairness, and reliance on established precedents to uphold justice. Their orders often direct reconsideration or fresh proceedings to rectify errors and ensure lawful adjudication.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India intervened in a case involving the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The query at the heart of this discussion—Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod set aside an order of Allahabad High Court—highlights a pivotal ruling where the apex court overturned the Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash FIR No. 850/2018. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in preventing misuse of stringent laws like the Gangster Act. While no documents explicitly name the exact bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod in this specific matter, the Supreme Court's analysis provides crucial precedents for challenging vague or vexatious prosecutions. Vinod Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 904
The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court erred in declining to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR registered at P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj. The proceedings were deemed an abuse of process due to vague allegations, absence of evidence, selective prosecution, and failure to disclose offences disturbing public order. The chargesheet merely reproduced FIR allegations without independent investigation or enclosures proving gangster activity. Vinod Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 904
This ruling emphasizes that courts must scrutinize such cases pre-trial to avoid harassment, especially under laws designed to curb organized crime but often invoked broadly.
The subject FIR (No. 850/2018, dated 28.07.2018) alleged that appellant Vinod B. Lal led an organized gang with David Dutta, committing economic offences under IPC Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII through forgery. It listed prior charge-sheeted cases but claimed local fear prevented complaints. However, the chargesheet (No. 235/2019) declared offences very well proved without annexures, witness statements, or impartial evidence—simply echoing the FIR. Vinod Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 904
The Court strongly disapproved: We strongly disapprove of this practice... the guilt or the innocence of the accused is for the trial court to determine. Base FIRs (e.g., No. 170/2017 quashed earlier; 476/2017, 726/2017, 761/2017, 244/2017) involved fraud/cheating but lacked violence, intimidation, or public order threats under Section 2(b) of the 1986 Act. David Dutta was absent from some, and one FIR lacked an incident date, pertaining to school operations without gang context. Vinod Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 904
Selective targeting of the appellant ignored other accused. The gang-chart from the District Magistrate was flawed, unlinking David Dutta from three base FIRs. A year-long delay post-first base FIR went unexplained, with no violence or threats alleged. Continuing the trial would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Vinod Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 904
Drawing from landmark cases:- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: Quashing warranted where allegations do not constitute an offence or proceedings are frivolous/vexatious.- R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab: High Courts can quash if allegations, even at face value, fail to disclose an offence, or evidence does not support charges.- Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.: Scrutinize FIRs for ulterior motives via circumstances like delays or multiple FIRs; criminal antecedents irrelevant without disclosed offences. Vinod Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 904
The Allahabad High Court wrongly declined jurisdiction, as the chargesheet added no value beyond FIR reproduction.
Justice Sanjay Kumar has featured in other high-profile benches addressing procedural safeguards. For instance, in SARFAESI Act matters, courts led by him stressed exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226, cautioning against frivolous litigation blocking public money recovery. The High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226... if an effective remedy is available. Sri Rama Enterprises VS State Bank of India - 2020 Supreme(AP) 757Ch. Uma Maheshwari VS State Bank of India - 2020 Supreme(AP) 21
Similarly, in disputes involving auction sales or loan recoveries, the emphasis is on statutory channels like Section 17 of SARFAESI, mirroring the CrPC quashing scrutiny here. These cases illustrate a consistent judicial trend: greater caution in financial/criminal recoveries to prevent abuse. While unrelated to the Gangster Act, they reinforce pre-trial intervention principles. Sri Rama Enterprises VS State Bank of India - 2020 Supreme(AP) 757
Other sources mention Allahabad High Court reversals in varied contexts, like pay scales or IT authorizations, but lack direct Gangster Act ties. State Of U. P. VS Section Officer Brootherhod - 2004 7 Supreme 739Commissioner Of Income Tax, Allahabad VS Vindhya Metal Corporation - 1997 3 Supreme 212
For those facing Gangster Act FIRs:1. Invoke Section 482 CrPC early, highlighting absent public order elements and verbatim chargesheet reproduction.2. Cite Bhajan Lal categories for vexatious proceedings.3. Challenge gang-charts for specificity on members/FIR links.4. Argue selective prosecution and delays as ulterior motive indicators.
Legal professionals should prepare comprehensive affidavits dissecting base FIRs for Section 2(b) compliance. Vinod Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 904
This Supreme Court intervention reaffirms safeguards against misuse of the UP Gangster Act, prioritizing evidence over labels. It guides lower courts to boldly quash baseless proceedings, protecting individuals from protracted trials. While empowering, outcomes depend on facts—consult a qualified lawyer for tailored advice.
Disclaimer: This post provides general information based on reported judgments and is not legal advice. Laws and interpretations may vary; seek professional counsel for specific cases.
#SupremeCourt #GangsterAct #QuashFIR
I am in complete agreement with the preposition of law laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of B. Gajendran (Supra) and Alhabad High Court in the Case of Kanchan Upadhyay (Supra). ... Similarly, Alhabad High Court in the Case of Kanchan Upadhyay (Supra) has observed in paragraph No.3 as under : “3. ... The petitioner has preferred present petition purported under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following substanti....
aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Family Court No.2-Ahmedabad at ANNEXURE A to this petition vide which the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner was vacated in the interest of justice. ... I am in complete agreement with the preposition of law laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of B. Gajendran (Supra) and Alhabad High Court in the Case of Kanchan Upadhyay (Supra). ... T....
JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 3 22-01-2021 The present petition has been brought under the heading ‘To be mentioned’ to correct typographical error to the extent that ... Rakesh Kumar, S/o Ramdhani Ray Resident of Village- Bhagwanpur Ritti, Patna High Court MJC No.1061 of 2020(3) dt.22-01-2021 2/3 P.S.- Vaishali, District- Vaishali. 21. ... Petitioner/s Versus Patna High Court MJC No.1061 of 2020(3) dt.22-01-2021 3....
hereby set aside. ... Similar view is also expressed by Alhabad High Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY approve the view taken by the trial judge and set aside High Court as reported in AIR 1975 page 333.
Futarmal and others in case no.15/2023/ pali may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (Anx.6) passed in appeal no.55/2024 Shri Vinod Jain Vs. ... Futarmal Jain by learned appellate authority Commissioner of Devasthan Vibhag Rajasthan, Udaipur be quashed and set aside. ... JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 28/01/2026 1. ... [2026:RJ-JD:5056] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTH....
Oral Order (Docket order) Today also none present. ... CUBE Elevators, # 302-B, A-30, Shankar Towers, Above Alhabad Bank, Balanagar, Hyderabad. ... SrinivasaRao QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.KJAISWAL, PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SMT MEENA RAMANATHAN, LADY MEMBER THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH ... The order dated 11.06.2020 has not been complied with, even though it was made clear that,
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra). ... JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) Date : 20-11-2024 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. ... The learned single Judge,....
be set aside. ... Sanjay K. ... Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22-4-2010 (Annexure P-1), qua the petitioner, is set aside. ... Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State: Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.
aside. ... Suman Kumari, w/o Sanjay Kumar; Judgment in Original (Guardianship) Suit No. 05 of 2016 is set ... Rupesh Kumar, s/o Naresh Saw; 4.
Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. ... ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Vinod K.Sharma, J. ... CR5359 of 2006 2 Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to file his written statement on or before 19.10.2006 ... In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme #HL_....
However, the respondent-accused is sentenced only to fine, which is enhanced to Rs 16 lakhs and shall be paid as compensation to the appellant complainant. The conviction of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. The judgment [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352] and order of the High Court is set aside.
This appeal arose out of SA No. 25 of 2011 filed by the petitioners herein before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The Court considers to reproduce order passed in WP No. 42025 of 2017, which is as follows: "The Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar and the Hon'ble Ms. Justice J. Uma Devi WP No. 42025 of 2017 ORDER : (Per Justice Sanjay Kumar) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in Appeal No. 74 of 2013/231. The petitioners thereafter without challenging the 2nd auction notice, unde....
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata in Appeal No.74 of 2013/231. The Court considers to reproduce order passed in W.P. No.42025 of 2017, which is as follows: “The HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION No.42025 of 2017 ORDER: (Per Justice Sanjay Kumar) This appeal arose out of S.A. No.25 of 2011 filed by the petitioners herein before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners thereafter without challenging the 2nd auction not....
3.A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice B.Prakash Rao and Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy set aside the above order of the learned Single Judge on 23.6.2006 in OSA No.s 52-59 of 2004.
3. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice B. Prakash Rao and Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy set aside the above order of the learned Single Judge on 23.6.2006 in OSA Nos. 52-59 of 2004.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
