Disposed

Kripashankar Ramniranjan Singh v. Central Vigilance Commission and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Apr 2017APPW/119/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 119 of 2017, the Bombay High Court allowed an applicant to intervene in Writ Petition No. 4357 of 2014 pending investigation on same allegations. The application was disposed of immediately.

What did the court decide?

Permitted applicant to intervene. Directed amendment within two weeks. Affidavit-in-reply allowed. Writ petition adjourned.

Kripashankar Ramniranjan Singh Vs Central Vigilance… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

23 appw 119.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2017 IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4357 OF 2014

¶4

Kripashankar Ramniranjan Singh ….Applicant/Intervenor In the matter between Shri Tulsidas Nair ...Petitioner versus Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhavan and ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Amit Desai, senior advocate along with Mr. K. H. Giri, advocate for the applicant/intervenor.

¶6

Mr. Tulsidas Nair, petitioner-in-person. Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar, advocate for the CBI. Mr. Abhay Ahuja, advocate for respondent No.5. Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 5^th APRIL, 2017.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Heard.

¶10

In paragraph 6 , the applicant has made following averments :

¶11

“6. The intervener states that, it is revealed from the charge-sheet filed by the respondent No.3 that, all the allegations made in the present Writ Petition, is already investigated and covered by the investigating agency, as also

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

23 appw 119.17.doc

Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for the applicant points out that in respect of the investigation referred in the above paragraph, charge-sheet has already been filed. Mr. Desai submits that the present petition is in respect of the same allegations which were covered in the previous litigation.

¶16

In the light of the above, we allow this application by permitting the applicant to intervene in the petition. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from today and amended copy of the petition be served upon all concerned.

¶17

The applicant is permitted to file an affidavit-in-reply with advance copy to the petitioner.

¶18

The criminal application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

Writ petition No.4357 of 2014 is adjourned to 3^rd May, 2017.

¶20

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶21

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Kripashankar Ramniranjan Singh v. Central Vigilance Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripashankar Ramniranjan Singh v. Central Vigilance Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikant Madhav Karve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anthony Vinod Pillai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amitkumar Babasaheb Shelake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Yakub Imtiyaz Shaikh Vs the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone-Ii and Ors.

Anil Dukhi Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surya @ Surendra Daulat Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.