Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (1.52 seconds)
Documents citing M. Balakrishna Reddy vs Director, Cbi, New Delhi on 14 March, 2008

M/S Fertico Marketing And Investment ... vs C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch Lucknow ... on 24 February, 2015

Ground No.1 The learned Counsel for CBI after taking help of judgement in M. Balakrishna Reddy v. CBI, (supra), and judgement of this Court in Sriniwas Dwivedi Vs. The State of U.P. through S.P. CBI (Supra) relied upon the sanction order passed by Sri M.K.Kadam, Addl. Director of Industries, under section 19 of PC Act against Yogendra Nath Pandey Asst. Manager DIC.
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - V C Gupta - Full Document

Sri D K Shivakumar vs State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2023

"Head Note A: Police - CBI - Exercise of powers and jurisdiction by CBI in a State - Consent of State Government under S. 6, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946) - Manner of giving - Particular form, if any - Such consent, held, need not be 22 given in any particular form - Whether the consent was or was not given, depends on the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down in that regard - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946) - Ss. 6, 5 and 3 - Public Accountability and Vigilance - Vigilance authorities - CBI"
Karnataka High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - K Natarajan - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 10 July, 2024

31. Such action of the Defendant also violates the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court that no investigation can be conducted within the territory of a State in absence of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act (see Kazi Lehendup Dorji v. CBI, & Ors 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 (para 4,9,17); Subramanian Swami v. CBI 2014 (8) SCC 682 (Para 67,68); State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Right, West Bengal & Ors. 2013(3) SCC 571 (Para 35,37); Mayawati v. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC106 (Para 9, 30, 41, 44); A.C Sharma v. Delhi Administration, 1973 (1) SCC 726 (Para 13); M Balakrishnan v. Director, CBI Delhi 2008 (4) SCC 409 (Para 18, 19)).
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

M/S Agri Sankalp Farma Estate India Pvt ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2020

Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2013 SC 1933 that the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. This has been observed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said decision which reads as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.S. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, vs State Of Ap on 20 March, 2020

(1) SCC 335 3 Investigation2, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate3, M.Balakrishna Reddy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi4 and lastly upon Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation5. Relying on these cases, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this Court should exercise its power to quash all further proceedings.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

O.Srinivasa Rao vs State Of Ap on 18 December, 2019

Central Bureau of Investigation v Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Another5 M. Balakrishna Reddy v Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi6 State of Haryana and Others v Bhajan Lal and Others7 The essence of the arguments as mentioned earlier is that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 mandates that the State Government should give permission for the CBI to function and operate within the State. It is the contention of the learned counsel that a reading of Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act make it very clear that the CBI cannot exercise any power or jurisdiction without the express consent of the State. Only the offences, which are specified only can be investigated by the Special Police Establishment. Thisis the sum and substance of the submissionsmade by all the learnedcounsel. By a conjoint reading of Section 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act they state that only if an order is passed extending the area of operation, the CBI can act outside the Union Territory. They argued that as per Section 5 (2) of the DSPE Act after the order is passed under Section 5(1)of the DSPE Act, the powers and jurisdictionof the members of the CBI would extend beyond the Union Territory of Delhi or 3 (2008) 4 SCC 409 4 (2012) 8 SCC 106 5 (2006) 7 SCC 188 6 (2008) 4 SCC 409 7 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 other Union Territories. In addition, they state that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 5 of the DSPE Act, the member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment can exercise powers in a State only if the Government of that State consents for the same as per Section 6 of the DSPE Act. All the learned counselsrelied on the plain language of the interpretation of these two sections,filed the case law and argued that an express consent of the State Government is necessary. As per them, Section 6 of the DSPE Act starts with non-obstanteclause and states as follows:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Raj Kumar Gupta & Others vs Union Of India & Othrs on 29 June, 2021

11) The Supreme Court in the case of M. Balakrishna Reddy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 409, after noticing the aforesaid three provisions of DSPE Act, explained the conditions which are required to be fulfilled before the CBI exercises its power and jurisdiction to investigate a case in any State. Para 19 of the said judgment is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - S Dhar - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. ... on 8 October, 2021

iii. Consent of the State Government has not been obtained for the exercise of powers by the CBI in the State of Telangana (Section 6 of the DSPE Act); and iv. In support of this, reliance is placed upon judgments of this Court in Mayawati v. Union of India 45, M. Balakrishna Reddy v. CBI 46, Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan 47 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI 48;
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 43 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next