Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    State of WB V Suvendu Adhikari 13dec 405838

    Uploaded by

    Anupam Joardar
    1) The Supreme Court of India heard two special leave petitions filed against an interim order from the Calcutta High Court that granted a stay in a criminal investigation. 2) The Supreme Court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 since the High Court is already seized of the matter and the petitions arose from an interlocutory order. 3) The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to file affidavits before the High Court and for the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the matter or consider modifying the interim order based on new evidence from the investigating officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    State of WB V Suvendu Adhikari 13dec 405838

    Uploaded by

    Anupam Joardar
    33 views3 pages
    1) The Supreme Court of India heard two special leave petitions filed against an interim order from the Calcutta High Court that granted a stay in a criminal investigation. 2) The Supreme Court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 since the High Court is already seized of the matter and the petitions arose from an interlocutory order. 3) The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to file affidavits before the High Court and for the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the matter or consider modifying the interim order based on new evidence from the investigating officer.

    Original Description:

    SC order

    Original Title

    state-of-wb-v-suvendu-adhikari-13dec--405838

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court of India heard two special leave petitions filed against an interim order from the Calcutta High Court that granted a stay in a criminal investigation. 2) The Supreme Court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 since the High Court is already seized of the matter and the petitions arose from an interlocutory order. 3) The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to file affidavits before the High Court and for the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the matter or consider modifying the interim order based on new evidence from the investigating officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views3 pages

    State of WB V Suvendu Adhikari 13dec 405838

    Uploaded by

    Anupam Joardar
    1) The Supreme Court of India heard two special leave petitions filed against an interim order from the Calcutta High Court that granted a stay in a criminal investigation. 2) The Supreme Court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 since the High Court is already seized of the matter and the petitions arose from an interlocutory order. 3) The Supreme Court directed the petitioners to file affidavits before the High Court and for the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the matter or consider modifying the interim order based on new evidence from the investigating officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    WWW.LIVELAW.

    IN

    SLP(Crl) 9259/2021
    1

    ITEM NO.15 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-B

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9251/2021

    (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-09-2021


    in WPA No.11803/2021 passed by the High Court at Calcutta)

    THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    SUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS. Respondent(s)

    (With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.156024/2021-EXEMPTION FROM


    FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.156022/2021-
    PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

    WITH S.L.P.(Crl) No.9408/2021 (II-B)


    (With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.158497/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
    FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.158498/2021-EXEMPTION
    FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.158496/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE
    ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

    Date : 13-12-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :
    HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

    For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Sr. Adv.


    Ms. Meneka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.
    Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.
    Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv.
    Mr. Chitralekha Das, Adv.
    Mr. Yash S Vijay, Adv.
    Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv.
    M/s. Plr Chambers & Co.
    WWW.LIVELAW.IN

    SLP(Crl) 9259/2021
    2

    SLP(Crl) 9408/2021 Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv.


    Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
    Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv.

    For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv.


    Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
    Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.
    Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv.
    Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv.
    Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Adv.
    Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Adv.
    Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, Adv.
    Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR

    SLP(Crl) 9408/2021 Mr. P.S Patwalia, Sr. Adv.


    Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
    Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.
    Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv.
    Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv.
    Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Adv.
    Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Adv.
    Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, Adv.
    Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv.
    Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR

    SLP(Crl) 9408/2021 Ms. Meneka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.


    Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.
    Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv.
    Mr. Chitralekha Das, Adv.
    Mr. Yash S Vijay, Adv.
    Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv.
    M/s. Plr Chambers & Co.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


    O R D E R

    1 The Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution arise from
    an interim order dated 6 September 2021 of a Single Judge of the High Court
    at Calcutta in WPA No 11803 of 2021. The Single Judge has permitted
    affidavits-in-opposition to be filed within a period of four weeks and the reply,
    if any, to be filed within two weeks thereafter. As of date, the State of West
    WWW.LIVELAW.IN

    SLP(Crl) 9259/2021
    3

    Bengal and the Investigating Officer are yet to file their replies.

    2 The prima facie observations of the High Court at this stage are in support of
    the ad - interim stay which has been granted. Since the High Court is seized
    of the proceedings, and the Special Leave Petitions arise from an
    interlocutory order, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this
    Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

    3 We, however, leave it open to the petitioners to file their affidavits-in-


    opposition before the High Court. Thereafter, the High Court may either
    consider taking up the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for
    expeditious final disposal or, in the event that it is not possible to do so, to
    consider any application that may be filed for modification of the interim
    order based on the material which is produced by the Investigating Officer in
    the affidavit-in-opposition.

    4 This Court has not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the issues
    which will arise in the pending writ petition before the High Court.

    5 Subject to the aforesaid directions, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed
    of.

    6 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

    (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)


    A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master

    You might also like