Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Mastiguda Aboobacker vs National Investigation Agency (N.I.A) on 23 November, 2020

Muhammed Shafi P vs National Investigation Agency on 18 February, 2021

11. Refuting these contentions, learned ASG and public prosecutor for NIA argued that there is no defect in the institution of appeals and they are laid properly in accordance with the provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ("NIA Act" in short) and the Cr.P.C. Contextually, we may refer to a Full Bench decision by this Court in Mastiguda Aboobacker and another v. National Investigation Agency (N.I.A.) and others (2020 (6) KHC 265), wherein it has been held that generally the provisions of Cr.P.C. are applicable to the proceedings in cases relating to NIA Act and wherever a different course is prescribed by the NIA Act, the procedure in the Cr.P.C. will stand modified to that extent.
Kerala High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muhammed Shafi P vs National Investigation Agency on 18 February, 2021

11. Refuting these contentions, learned ASG and public prosecutor for NIA argued that there is no defect in the institution of appeals and they are laid properly in accordance with the provisions of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ("NIA Act" in short) and the Cr.P.C. Contextually, we may refer to a Full Bench decision by this Court in Mastiguda Aboobacker and another v. National Investigation Agency (N.I.A.) and others (2020 (6) KHC 265), wherein it has been held that generally the provisions of Cr.P.C. are applicable to the proceedings in cases relating to NIA Act and wherever a different course is prescribed by the NIA Act, the procedure in the Cr.P.C. will stand modified to that extent.
Kerala High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Muhammed Shafi.P vs National Investigation Agency on 18 February, 2021

In Mastiguda Aboobacker's case after referring to various legal dictionaries it has been held that an interlocutory order is one which is made pending the cause and before a final hearing on merits. It is further observed Crl.Appeal No.878 of 2020 6 that an interlocutory order is an order that refers to some intermediate matter in the case; any order other than a final order. In the above decision, the Full Bench had examined the distinctions between an interlocutory order, an intermediate order and a final order.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abdul Razak @ Abu Ahmed vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2021

5. At first, we shall deal with the contention raised by the learned ASG regarding the maintainability of Crl.M.C. According to him, there is an appeal contemplated under section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which was supposed to be filed within a period of 30 days. The appeal contemplated in the said provision is against a judgment, sentence or an order, not being an interlocutory order ie: an order which has an element of finality to it. A Full Bench of this Court in Mastiguda Aboobacker vs. NIA 2020 (6) KHC 265 found the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorised orders as final, interlocutory and intermediary; a charge framed being in the nature of an intermediary order.
Kerala High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 4 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Suresh Raj vs National Investigation Agency on 14 June, 2022

Annexure5 TYPED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN RC NO.01/2021/NIA/KOC AND SESSIONS CASE 4/2021 FROM 15.06.2021 TILL DATE AS NOTED IN THE A-DIARY OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Annexure6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.13.08.2021 ISSUED BY HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.P NO.150/2021 IN RC-01/2021/NIA/KOC Annexure7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.13.08.2021 ISSUED BY HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.P NO.149/2021 IN RC-01/2021/NIA/KOC Annexure8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LETTERS DT.28.08.2021 SENT BY THE APPELLANT AND SOUNDAR RAJAN @ SOUNDAR (A8) FROM SUB JAIL ALUVA AND THE REPORT DT.28.08.2021 Annexure9 TRUE COPY OF THE DT. 27.09.2021, THE HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT IN CRL.M.P.177/2021 DT.23.09.2021 IN RC-01/2021/NIA/KOC.
Kerala High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Mohammed Shariff vs National Investigating Agency on 27 March, 2025

8. In the light of what is aforesaid and the issue being a jurisdictional error, in all such cases, this Court has declined to entertain the petition and has directed those accused to approach the division bench. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quote the judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in the case of MASTIGUDA ABOOBACKER Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159 "7. Since the issue centres around the interpretation of Section 21 of the NIA Act, we shall extract the same:
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Imran Ahmed vs National Investigating Agency on 27 March, 2025

8. In the light of what is aforesaid and the issue being a jurisdictional error, in all such cases, this Court has declined to entertain the petition and has directed those accused to approach the division bench. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quote the judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in the case of MASTIGUDA ABOOBACKER Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159 "7. Since the issue centres around the interpretation of Section 21 of the NIA Act, we shall extract the same:
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Syed Atiq Ahmed @ Ateeq Ahmed vs National Investigating Agency on 27 March, 2025

8. In the light of what is aforesaid and the issue being a jurisdictional error, in all such cases, this Court has declined to entertain the petition and has directed those accused to approach the division bench. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quote the judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in the case of MASTIGUDA ABOOBACKER Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159 "7. Since the issue centres around the interpretation of Section 21 of the NIA Act, we shall extract the same:
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Mohammed Kaleem Ahmed vs National Investigating Agency on 27 March, 2025

8. In the light of what is aforesaid and the issue being a jurisdictional error, in all such cases, this Court has declined to entertain the petition and has directed those accused to approach the division bench. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quote the judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in the case of MASTIGUDA ABOOBACKER Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159 "7. Since the issue centres around the interpretation of Section 21 of the NIA Act, we shall extract the same:
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Mahammad Shiyab S vs National Investigation Agency on 31 May, 2024

227. In other words, the ambit, intendment and scope of these two powers are not similar and one cannot be regarded as a substitute for the other. We, therefore, hold that availability of supervisory power under Article 227 can never be a reason to exclude the inherent powers existing in the High Court, which is expressly saved under Section 482 of the Code. We also hold that there is no express or implied bar created by the NIA Act in the exercise of the High Court's inherent powers safeguarded under Section 482 of the Code. Besides, as held by the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani and followed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Constitution confirmed and revested in the High Court all the existing powers and jurisdictions, including its inherent powers. The inherent powers of the High Court, preserved by Section 561A of the old Code and Section 482 of the present Code, are thus vested in the High Court by "law" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. We shall neither negate nor abdicate or abridge the inherent powers of the High Court by relying on some flimsy inferences because the exercise of such powers will be essentially required in certain cases. We, therefore, hold that in appropriate cases the High Court has power to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1