2013 of 2015)
K. Anbazhagan ...Appellant
Versus
Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Anr. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur ... their known sources of income,
criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms. Jayalalithaa and her
associates. Special Courts were constituted by the new government
Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002
Author: P.D.Dinakaran
Bench: P.D.Dinakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ... Jayalalithaa .. Petitioner
Vs
1. State Represented by
Superintendent of Police
Special Investigation Cell
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Chennai.
2. J.Ilavarasi
3. .Sasikala
2013 of 2015)
K. Anbazhagan ...Appellant
Versus
Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Anr. …Respondents
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question ... their known sources of
income, criminal proceedings were initiated against Ms.
Jayalalithaa and her associates. Special Courts were
constituted by the new government
Selvi J Jayalalithaa vs State Rep By The Superintendent Of ... on 10 March, 2010
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED ... MISC.CRL.731;/2O1"0 A "
BETWEEN:
SELVI J. JAYALALITHAA
AGED 61 YEARS
"VEDA NILAYAM"
81. POES GARDEN _ _
CHENNAL
Selvi J Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By The ... on 23 November, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 CRI. L. J. 1567, 2011 (1) AIR KANT
Selvi J Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 18 March, 2011
1
IN THE man ccum OF KARNATAKA AT
BATE9 THIS
mention any source was
presented as a narrative
of Ms.Jayalalithaa
discussion with a group
of people the
developments ... AIADMK and her Poes
Garden residence.
The story claimed that
Ms.Jayalalitha told her
friends that there was no
basis for the allegation
that
mention any source was
presented as a narrative
of Ms.Jayalalithaa
discussion with a group
of people the
developments ... AIADMK and her Poes
Garden residence.
The story claimed that
Ms.Jayalalitha told her
friends that there was no
basis for the allegation
that
case falsely against him are at the
instance of Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister.
(ii) Reply by the State is as follows :
"(a) Action ... hold that there is a
mala fide investigation at the instance of Jayalalithaa.
(b) Even according to the petitioner, due to the mala fides
case falsely against him are at the instance of Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister.
(ii) Reply by the State is as follows :
(a) Action sought ... hold that there is a mala fide investigation at the instance of Jayalalithaa.
(b) Even according to the petitioner, due to the mala fides
