LawforAll

▼
Thursday, October 21, 2021

Question of Jurisdiction in special courts = We hold that, in accordance with Section 6(7), the ATS Nanded was not barred from continuing with its investigation till the NIA Mumbai actually took up the investigation. Further, we hold that the CJM, Nanded could have committed the case to trial before the ASJ, Nanded upon the filing of charge-sheet by the ATS Nanded since they were the designated Courts for the ATS Nanded and no Special Court had been designated by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 22 of the NIA Act.

›
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 1165 of 2021 Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai … Appell...

Whether the assignee can execute the decree = The Explanation clearly stipulates that nothing in Order XXI Rule 16 of the CPC would affect the provisions of Section 146 and the transferee of the right in property which is subject matter of a suit may apply for execution of the decree without separate assignment of the decree as required by law. No doubt the appellants are not parties in the suit proceedings but they claim as assignees of the decree holder.

›
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.18278 OF 2017 VAISHNO DEVI CONSTRUCTION Rep. Thr. Sole...

whether prior approval dated 14.08.2018 granted by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, in connection with offence registered as Crime No.221/2017, is valid or otherwise. - the High Court has completely glossed over the crucial fact that the writ petition was filed only after the sanction was accorded by the competent authority under Section 24(2) and more so cognizance was also taken by the competent Court of the offence of organized crime committed by the members of organized crime syndicate including the writ petitioner — to which there was no challenge. The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of these developments as disentitling the writ petitioner belated relief claimed in respect of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act. Further, the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the chargesheet filed against the writ petitioner­Mohan Nayak.N for offences punishable under Section 28 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the 2000 Act at this stage [of prior approval under Section 24(1)(a)].- We have held that the same does not suffer from any infirmity including qua private respondent­Mohan Nayak.N having noted his intimate nexus with the brain behind the entire event being none other than Amol Kale and master arms trainer Rajesh D. Bangera who are part and parcel of an organized crime syndicate and committed organized crimes as such.

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL...