Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 1 November, 2017

Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

                                                  1

     ITEM NO.6+ 7                         COURT NO.12                 SECTION II-A

                              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(s).   4634/2014

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-04-2014
     in CRLA No. 1132/2012 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
     Bombay)

     VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS.                                  Petitioner(s)

                                                 VERSUS

     UNION OF INDIA                                                   Respondent(s)

     (MR. RAJESH KUMAR AND M/S. A.C.M. LEGAL, ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF
     IMPLEADED      PARTIES.[TO    BE     TAKEN     UP     ALONGWITH
     SLP(CRL.)NO.5487/2017])

     WITH

     SLP(Crl) No. 2890/2017 (II-A)
     T.P.(Crl.) No. 150/2016 (XVI -A)
     T.P.(Crl.) No. 151-157/2016 (XVI -A)
     SLP(Crl) No. 993/2016 (II-A)
     SLP(Crl.) No. 5487/2016 (II-A)
     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.63437/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
     C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.69536/2017-DELETING THE NAME
     OF RESPONDENT)

     Date : 01-11-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL


     For Petitioner(s)             Mr.   Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
                                   Mr.   Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Adv.
                                   Mr.   Saurabh Kirpal, Adv.
                                   Mr.   Sangram S.Saron, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
                                   Mr.   Harshit Sethi, Adv.
Digitally signed by
SHASHI SAREEN
                                   MS.   Pragati Sharma, Adv.
Date: 2017.11.02
16:09:22 IST                       Mr.   Nikhil Jain, Adv.
Reason:



                                   Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR

                                   M/S.    Fox Mandal & Co., AOR
                                   2



For Respondent(s)   Ms.   Pinky Anand, ASG,
                    Mr.   A.K.Panda, Sr. Adv.
                    MS.   Binu Tamta, Adv.
                    Mr.   Prateek Jalan, Adv.
                    Mr.   Devashish Bharukha, Adv.
                    Ms.   Nisha Bagchi, Adv.
                    Mr.   Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
                    Mr.   Abhinav Mukherjee, Adv.
                    Mr.   Ajay Sharma, Adv.
                    Mr.   Vijay Sharma, Adv.
                    Ms.   Pooja Sharma, Adv.
                    Mr.   Sumit Tetewal, Adv.
                    Mr.   B. Krishna Prasad, AOR

                    Mr.   P.K.Dey, Adv.
                    Mr.   T.A.Khan, adv.
                    Mr.   S.S.Shamshery, Adv.
                    Mr.   M.K.Maroria, Adv.

                    Mr. M. T. George, AOR
                    Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv.

                    Mr. Aditya Gaggar, Adv.
                    Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR

                    Mr. V.Sudeer, Adv.
                    Mr. M.B.R.S.Raju, Adv.
                    Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR

                    Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, AOR

                    Mr. Shimranjeet Singh, Adv.
                    M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

                    Mr. Kunal Cheema, Adv.
                    Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Adv.
                    Mr. Yogesh K.Ahirrao, Adv.

                    Mr. Azmat H.Amanullah, Adv.
                    Ms. Reetu Saipawar, Adv.

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R

These matters are adjourned by four weeks in order that the parties sit together and produce a common chart indicating clearly in which cases charge-sheet has been filed and in which cases 3 investigation is still going on.

Apart from that Mr. P.K.Dey, learned counsel for the respondent also informs us that there are some Prevention of Corruption Act cases which are required to go to the Sessions Court. A separate chart of those cases be given on the next date of hearing.

We are informed that all matters dealing with the same point have not been listed. On the subsequent occasion, all similar matters will be listed.

(SHASHI SAREEN)                                          (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
  AR CUM PS                                                BRANCH OFFICER