Disposed
Amarnath v. CBI
Delhi HCW.P.(CRL)/2285/2019
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
A writ petition challenging inquiry proceedings as ultra vires due to amendments in the Prevention of Corruption Act was disposed of as infructuous because the petitioner had expired.
What did the court decide?
The petition is disposed of as infructuous along with all pending applications.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~34
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- W.P.(CRL) 2285/2019 and CRL.M.A. 33597/2019
¶4
AMARNATH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hitendra Nahata, Advocate.
¶5
Versus
¶6
CBI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP for the CBI.
¶7
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R % 17.09.2024
¶8
- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
¶9
- The present petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking inter alia declaration of the proceedings in RC. BDI/1/2006/E/0006/BS & FC / ND (RAMAN VIHAR CGHS) before the Ld. Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, as ultra vires in view of the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendement) Act, 2018.
¶10
- The proxy counsel appearing for ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Hitendra Nahata, submits that the Petitioner-Amarnath has expired and thus he does not wish to press the present petition.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Amarnath
- respondent
CBI
Coram
AI extract
Prathiba M. Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court