Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Subrata Chattoraj vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 May, 2014
11. I am conscious of the fact that the power
to entrust a case to the Central Bureau of
Investigation has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously
and in exceptional situations. But the decree in the
case has national ramifications since it involves the
retrieval of deities and invaluable items of movables
Tr.P(C) No.496/2014 &
IA.No.17447/2013 in OP(C) No.256/2013
16
belonging to the Samsthan. It cannot be lost sight
that devotees across the globe visit the Samsthan to
pay obeisance to the first defendant who is the
spiritual Guru of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. The decree
obtained by the first defendant has been reduced into a
mockery by the second plaintiff who continues to be
elusive to the arms of law. The second plaintiff is
politically, economically and otherwise very powerful
as stated by the Inspector General of Police, Kochi
Range and the process of court is obstructed. This is
evidently a fit case where the investigation has to be
entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation 'to
trace, arrest and produce' the second plaintiff. The
team of police officers headed by the Inspector General
of Police, Central Range is therefore substituted by
the Central Bureau of Investigation. The following
observations in Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India
[2014 (8) SCC 768] popularly known as the 'Chit Fund
Scam case' is apposite:
Section 24 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Vibhudapriya Thirtha Swamiar vs Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar on 21 March, 1927
The grant of police aid to execute the decree in
E.P.No.167/2011 is concluded by Srimad Sudhindra
Thirtha Swamiji v. Raghavendra Thirtha Swamiji [2013
(2) KLT 203]. The operative part of the judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
This is the
purport and intent of Section 39(4) of the CPC as
reiterated in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union
of India [AIR 2005 SC 3353]. The local limits of the
jurisdiction of the executing court cannot be enlarged
by withdrawing the execution petition pending in the
court below to this Court. What then is the earthly
purpose of withdrawing an execution petition pending in
the court below except clustering this Court with the
Tr.P(C) No.496/2014 &
IA.No.17447/2013 in OP(C) No.256/2013
10
additional burden. This Court can always monitor the
execution proceedings pending in the court below in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. I therefore dismiss Tr.P (C)
No.496/2014 filed by the first defendant to withdraw
E.P.No.167/2011 from the court of the I Additional
District Judge, Ernakulam to this Court.
1