Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing J. Jayalalitha Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 14 May, 1999

R.Thamaraiselvan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 July, 2011

In J.Jayalalitha v. Union of India [(1999) 5 SCC 138], the constitution of Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act was challenged and so also the appointment of Special Judges under Section 3(1) of P.C. Act for trying a case or group of cases within the particular area was challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the light of the specific provision under section 3(1) of the P.C. Act held that the Government has power to appoint Special Judge to try a particular case or group of cases, but in the case on hand, this Court has pointed out that for registering, investigating and trying the cases under Sections 447, 420 and 506(ii) IPC and other offences, the regular courts are conferred with jurisdiction to try those cases and also placed reliance upon the observations made in para 62 of Anwar Ali Sarkar case and held that registering cases and investigating it in respect of offenders, namely Land Grabbers is wholly arbitrary and not proper classification. Though it is to be stated that constitution of Special Courts to try particular type of cases cannot stated to be bad in law, in the light of this Court holding that G.O.(Ms).No.423 dated 28.07.2011 is to be quashed, as a natural corollary, G.O.Ms.No.451 dated 11.08.2011 in constituting Special Courts is also liable to be quashed, as no purpose would be served by keeping such Special Courts in existence.
Madras High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

R.Thamaraiselvan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 July, 2011

In J.Jayalalitha v. Union of India [(1999) 5 SCC 138], the constitution of Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act was challenged and so also the appointment of Special Judges under Section 3(1) of P.C. Act for trying a case or group of cases within the particular area was challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the light of the specific provision under section 3(1) of the P.C. Act held that the Government has power to appoint Special Judge to try a particular case or group of cases, but in the case on hand, this Court has pointed out that for registering, investigating and trying the cases under Sections 447, 420 and 506(ii) IPC and other offences, the regular courts are conferred with jurisdiction to try those cases and also placed reliance upon the observations made in para 62 of Anwar Ali Sarkar case and held that registering cases and investigating it in respect of offenders, namely Land Grabbers is wholly arbitrary and not proper classification. Though it is to be stated that constitution of Special Courts to try particular type of cases cannot stated to be bad in law, in the light of this Court holding that G.O.(Ms).No.423 dated 28.07.2011 is to be quashed, as a natural corollary, G.O.Ms.No.451 dated 11.08.2011 in constituting Special Courts is also liable to be quashed, as no purpose would be served by keeping such Special Courts in existence.
Madras High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

R.Thamaraiselvan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 July, 2011

In J.Jayalalitha v. Union of India [(1999) 5 SCC 138], the constitution of Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act was challenged and so also the appointment of Special Judges under Section 3(1) of P.C. Act for trying a case or group of cases within the particular area was challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the light of the specific provision under section 3(1) of the P.C. Act held that the Government has power to appoint Special Judge to try a particular case or group of cases, but in the case on hand, this Court has pointed out that for registering, investigating and trying the cases under Sections 447, 420 and 506(ii) IPC and other offences, the regular courts are conferred with jurisdiction to try those cases and also placed reliance upon the observations made in para 62 of Anwar Ali Sarkar case and held that registering cases and investigating it in respect of offenders, namely Land Grabbers is wholly arbitrary and not proper classification. Though it is to be stated that constitution of Special Courts to try particular type of cases cannot stated to be bad in law, in the light of this Court holding that G.O.(Ms).No.423 dated 28.07.2011 is to be quashed, as a natural corollary, G.O.Ms.No.451 dated 11.08.2011 in constituting Special Courts is also liable to be quashed, as no purpose would be served by keeping such Special Courts in existence.
Madras High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 2 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

The C.B.I. (A.H.D.) vs Braj Bhushan Prasad And Ors. on 4 May, 2001

51. Here I am constrained to observe that I am unable to find any sanction in law for the letter, dated 13-6-1996 issued by the High Court on its administrative side directing that Shri Sudhanshu Kumar Lal be asked to deal with all cases pertaining to the Animal Husbandry scam without any restriction of area. It seems that in the absence of any direction issued by the Central Government in that regard, the High Court stepped in and assumed the authority vested in the Central Government alone by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It may be difficult to justify the direction given by the High Court even with reference to the Supreme Court decision in J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India and Ors.. as that decision was rendered in a totally different set of facts, it may, however, be stated here that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Special Court of Shri S.K. Lal and the direction issued by the High Court may be considered as an irregularity which was not incurable.
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A Alam - Full Document

Smt. R. Nalini And Mr. B. Ranganathan vs State, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, ... on 31 December, 2004

In fact, in J. Jayalalithaa v. Union of India, reported in 1999 Crl.L.J page 2859, when a notification issued on 5.2.1999 by the Central Government by transferring certain group of cases pending in various courts of Chennai City to the Special Courts, and when the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have set aside the Notification and observed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S A Kumar - Full Document

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 September, 2011

In the decision reported in AIR 1999 SC 1912 : (1999) 5 SCC 138 (J.Jayalalitha v. Union of India) the appellant therein challenged Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, empowering the State Government to appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such case or group of cases, as may be specified in the notification and also challenged the notification dated 30.4.1997 constituting three additional Courts of City Civil Court, Chennai. This Court rejected the contentions of the appellant and upheld Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 as well as constitution of special courts. The said order was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court by raising similar contention as contention No.3 that by issuing notification the Government acted mala fidely both on law and facts with a view to target the political opponents and no cause of any real and genuine necessity was felt for the trial of cases specified in the notification constituting separate Special Courts. It was also contended that notifications were issued mainly against the former Chief Minister, her Cabinet Colleagues and public officials constituting Special Courts only at Chennai and there was discrimination in issuing the said notification. It is also contended that the intention of the Government was picking and choosing cases and political targeting. All the said contentions were negatived by this Court, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court. In paragraphs 20 and 21 the Supreme Court held thus, "20. .......... These submissions were raised by the appellants before the High Court and the High Court has elaborately dealt with the same and after giving good reasons rejected all of them. The High Court has referred to the date which was brought on record to show that a large number of cases were pending before the Special Courts in the city of Chennai. Moreover, the Courts of Special Judges were also acting as Additional Sessions Courts and were thus overburdened with the ordinary criminal cases also. We have also referred to some material placed in this behalf by the State before the High Court in the earlier part of our judgment. In view of the material which has been brought on record it cannot be seriously disputed that the cases which are specified in the notification being of a complex nature will not be over within a period of about 10 years if they are left to be tried by the Area Special Judges. Moreover as pointed out by this Court in Special Courts Bill, 1978, Re5 speedy trial of offences of a public nature committed by persons who have held high public or political offices in the country and others connected with the commission of such offences is the heart of the matter. Thus the speedier trial of corruption cases against public servants/officers holding high government officials (sic offices) being a relevant consideration it cannot be said that by appointing separate Special Judges for speedier trial of those cases the Government has either singled out cases against its political opponents or that the power has been exercised by the Government for political targeting. The appellants have not brought on record any material to show that the cases of similarly situated politicians or public servants/officials were also pending and they have been left untouched for being tried by the Area Special Judges.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohinder Singh And Anr vs State Th. Accountability Commission ... on 4 January, 2013

68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundations of the Indian democracy an the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our Preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. 69. Time and again this Court has expressed its dismay and shock at the ever-growing tentacles of corruption in our society but even then situations have not improved much.(See Sanjiv Kumar V. State of Haryana; State of A.P. Vs. V. Vasudeva Rao; Shobha Suresh Jumani V. /Appellate Tribunal; state of M.P. v. Ram Singh; J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India; and Major S.K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra.)
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - H Massodi - Full Document

K. Anbazhagan vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 15 April, 2015

Mr. Anbazhagan is the General Secretary of the DMK, a political party [2] (2004) 3 SCC 767 [3] J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 138 [4] B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 3435 [5] 406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 27 - M B Lokur - Full Document

K. Anbazhagan vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 27 April, 2015

2. The factual score exposited in this appeal has a history. The 5th respondent, Ms. J. Jayalalithaa, was the elected Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 1991 to 1996 and she was heading the political party called AIADMK. In 1996, she faced a political defeat at the hands of another political party, namely, DMK. Keeping in view the allegations pertaining to amassing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, criminal proceedings were initiated against her and her associates, respondent nos. 6 to 8. The State of Tamil Nadu had constituted Special Courts for their prosecution. In pursuance of the constitution of Special Courts, C.C. No. 7 of 1997 was filed before the learned Special Judge, Chennai against the accused persons and they were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for brevity, “the 1988 Act”). The constitution of the Special Courts was challenged before this Court in J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India[2], which upheld the constitution of the Special Court. In the said case, the two- Judge Bench observed thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next