REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K.C. PALANISWAMY Appellant

V/S

STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY AND OTHERS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R.V KENSINGTON INCOME TAX COMMISSIONERS [REFERRED TO]
NARAINDAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ADVOCATE GENERAL STATE OF BIHAR VS. MADHYA PRADESH KHAIR INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
RAMJAS FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NOORDUDDIN VS. K L ANAND [REFERRED TO]
AFZAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAMNIKLAL N BHUTTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
VINEETNARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SABIA KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
T T ANTHONY VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY MINOR IRRIGATION AND RURAL ENGG SERVICES UP VS. SAHNGOO RAM ARYA [REFERRED TO]
S J S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES P LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
SAKIRI VASU VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
K D SHARMA VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHANTRIANJAN SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FOOD SECURITY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAMASAMY ATHAPPAN VS. SECRETARIAT OF THE COURT INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 21.06.2011.

(2.) THE petitioner is one and the same in all the writ petitions. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.29495/2010), the petitioner seeks for a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing-2, Chennai to transfer the investigation pending in FIR Nos.4 and 5 of 2009 to the Central Bureau of Investigation, represented by its Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Chennai shown as 6th respondent and to appoint officers in whose integrity, independence and competence this Court may have confidence for supervising the said investigation.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri for M/s.Iyer and Thomas, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.RM.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.Philip Aravindan Jesudoss, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for 6th respondent and Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.A.R.Karunakaran, counsel for the intervener in W.P.No.29497 of 2010.

Click here to view full judgment.

K C PALANISWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address