Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Sujay U. Desai vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 25 July, 2022

Hari Sankaran vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office And ... on 7 March, 2024

24. The ratio laid down hereinabove by various pronouncements would attract to the case in hand and can be made squarely applicable. The respondent No.1 has not disputed long incarceration as well as serious health condition of the applicant who is now 63 years old. Rather, facts of the case in hand are more 25 1996 (2) Supreme Court Cases 616 20 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2024 12:06:52 ::: ba-2937-2022.doc egregious than the instances referred in the case of Jainam Rathod and Sujay U. Desai (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Hari Sankaran vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office And ... on 7 March, 2024

24. The ratio laid down hereinabove by various pronouncements would attract to the case in hand and can be made squarely applicable. The respondent No.1 has not disputed long incarceration as well as serious health condition of the applicant who is now 63 years old. Rather, facts of the case in hand are more 25 1996 (2) Supreme Court Cases 616 20 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2024 12:06:57 ::: ba-2937-2022.doc egregious than the instances referred in the case of Jainam Rathod and Sujay U. Desai (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Hari Sankaran vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office And ... on 7 March, 2024

24. The ratio laid down hereinabove by various pronouncements would attract to the case in hand and can be made squarely applicable. The respondent No.1 has not disputed long incarceration as well as serious health condition of the applicant who is now 63 years old. Rather, facts of the case in hand are more 25 1996 (2) Supreme Court Cases 616 20 of 28 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2024 12:06:47 ::: ba-2937-2022.doc egregious than the instances referred in the case of Jainam Rathod and Sujay U. Desai (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Komal Chadha vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 21 December, 2022

18.4. Jainam Rathod vs. State of Haryana & Anr 4 and Sujay U Desai vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office5: On the point that apart from enforcing the provisions of section 212(6) of the Companies Act, it is also necessary to protect the Constitutional 1 Crl. A. 189/2022 decided on 07.02.2022 (Supreme Court) 2 (2012) 1 SCC 40 3 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4065 4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1506 5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1507 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DIVYA SHARMA Signing Date:22.12.2022 BAIL APPLN. 1740/2022 Page 6 of 18 16:09:11 2022/DHC/005738 right of a accused to an expeditious trial; and where there are a large number of accused, delay in the trial is bound to occur;
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Nayak vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 11 November, 2022

A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sujay U. Desai v. Serious Fraud Investigation, CRL.A. 1023/2022 and it has been held that the right to an expeditious trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The applicant in that case was also accused of violating the provisions of Section 447 of the Companies Act and was arrested on 19.03.2020 but was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.07.2022.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Khandelwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 23 February, 2023

Further In Jainam Rathod vs. State of Haryana and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1506 and in Sanjay U Desai vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1507, the Courts held equally it is necessary to protect the constitutional right of an expeditious trial in a situation where large number of accused implicated in a trial would necessarily delay the trial and the right to expeditious trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Y Khanna - Full Document

Suman Chadha vs Serious Fraud Insvestigation Office on 19 July, 2023

27.15. To add to this, trial in the matter is bound to take considerable time; and this court sees no reason to wait for further time to elapse before lamenting that the petitioner has suffered pre-trial detention for an unduly long period. As cited above, the Supreme Court has held in Jainam Rathore (supra) and Sujay U. Desai (supra) that even where section 212(6) of the Companies Act applies, that does not detract from an accused‟s right to an expeditious trial.
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Ajay Ramesh Chandra Nawandar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 31 May, 2024

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2024 at 22:05:59 Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 1506; Sujay U. Desai v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1507; Zahur Haider Zaidi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 20 SCC 404; Radhye Shyam v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4997; R. Vasudevan v. CBI, New Delhi, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 130; K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631; V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 665; Mohan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next