REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Aman Kumar Singh Appellant

V/S

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER V. P.P. SHARMA IAS & ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
H N RISHBUD VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN AND AGNIHOTRI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. J A C SALDANHA:J A C SALDANHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA:SANCHAITA INVESTMENTS [REFERRED TO]
K VEERASWAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M KRISHNA REDDY VS. STATE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MINAKSHI BALA VS. SUDHIR KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
VINEETNARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH SINGH BADAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. M KRISHNA MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. UJJAL KUMAR BURDHAN [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF N CT OF DELHI VS. AJAY KUMAR TYAGI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DR RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV THAPAR VS. MADAN LAL KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]
STATE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU VS. P. SURYAPRAKASAM [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA VS. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE VS. H. SRINIVAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA VS. MANAGIPET @ MANGIPET SARVESHWAR REDDY [REFERRED TO]
CHARANSINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since same set of facts are involved in all the petitions, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised objection with regard to hearing of this matter by this Bench contending that the matters are presently part heard before Coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, in the interest of propriety, it is settled law that all the part heard matters should be placed before the Bench, who has already heard the matter, so that Bench can decide whether the same should be released. He would further submit that appropriate course of action would be that the matter should be placed before the other Coordinate Bench, who has partly heard the matter, so that he can decide whether he would wish to hear the matters or release them to be placed before the roster bench.

(3.) This issue is decided first as it goes to the route of the matter. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior counsel for the State and perused the order-sheets of the case recorded on 28/2/2020, 3/3/2020, 5/5/2020, 9/10/2020 and 19/10/2020, wherein nowhere mentioned in the order-sheet that the matter is 'part heard', thereafter, after reopening of Court after Summer Vacation, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice has amended the Roster and the Roster related to Writ Petition (Cr.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as the petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been allocated to this Bench, therefore, this matter is being heard by this Bench, as such, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the State is that the matter was 'part heard' by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, is incorrect statement, therefore, the same is rejected and now the matter is being decided by this Bench on its own merits.

Click here to view full judgment.

AMAN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address