Bombay High Court is hearing plea by BJP leader Kirit Somaiya seeking quashing of his own FIR on the ground that it was not properly recorded and not at his instance.
Lawyer: I am trying to lodge an FIR. It is not done on my instructions, but on instructions of superior. This is on first instance, so how can they exoect I will go to same police station?
Court (to APP): Which is treated as FIR? If the earlier statement he is saying is not properly recorded and if it is not signed can you treat it as FIR?
APP reiterates, second submission is treated as statement.
Court (to lawyer): What vested interest will police have?
Justice Dere: And firstly please do not raise your voice, do not try and intimidate the court. Is this your handwriting or not? Is this your signature or not?
Lawyer: This is a complaint that I am making that the police are manipulating my statement and not treating it as an FIR. That this is being falsely told to the court that they have recorded my statement.
Lawyer: I will take my remedy. I will move before the police station and lodge my fir.
Court: FIR is quashed, then you will go and lodge the FIR. So then why not go and record a fresh statement?
Court: what will happen is you lodge, and then we quash your FIR. Then the second FIR you lodge... Look at time, look at delay and then it will be called as politically motivated. You must apply reason and do what is right.
Court: It (volume) also does not depend on which clients you are representing. If you have a good case you need not raise your voice. Look at your earlier voice and look at your voice now. Anyway, we keep it back for 15 mins.
Order: Heard learned counsel for petitioner in plea for quashing of FIR. The petitioner has sougnt several reliefs. The learned counsel does not press for other prayer clauses.
Order: As far as prayer clause ‘a’ is concerned, he seeks quashing of FIR. He submits that quashing is sought on the premise that the statement is not recorded as per his instructions.
Order: Learned APP states on instructions of Senior PI that it is always open to the petitioner to record supplementary statement.Learned counsel for petitioner states on instructions in view of this statement he is not pressing for prayer a.
The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal against a division bench order of the Madras HC setting aside single-judge order cancelling election of E Palaniswami as AIADMK General Secretary.
Justice Shah: You never disclosed the baby was not born in Bellary. We have full sympathy.. What they are saying is the discharge took place only after arguments before this court.
Kerala High Court is hearing two petitions challenging the summons issued by the ED to current and former officials of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) in connection with its financial transactions esp around masala bonds. @dir_ed
The first plea is moved by KIIFB itself cc challenging the repeated issuance of summons to it's office bearers
The other plea is moved by Dr. Thomas Issac, former Kerala Finance Minister, challenging the ED summons issued to him in connection with the KIIFB probe. @dir_ed @drthomasisaac
#SupremeCourt Constitution Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul hearing case relating to top court's powers under Article 142 to grant divorce when parties are not consenting.
Sr Adv Indira Jaising arguing.
Jaising: Judge has to be arbiter, there will always be lack of consent.
Justice Kaul says where the Court has exercised Article 142 powers, it have made sure to put a quietus to the allegations: A blank slate given before granting divorce.
Justice Kaul: Look at the time period. From the 1990's the time has changed a lot...we have to do innovative thinking.
Justice Khanna points how abroad usually both spouses are working.
Jaising: I India, unfortunately, there aren't enough empirical studies.