|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1346 Records
-
2021 (1) TMI 1188
Issues involved:
1. Recovery of CIRP costs by RP
2. Challenge to the maintainability of IA No. 348 of 2018
3. RP's application under Section 66 of the IBC, 2016
4. Challenge to the maintainability of IA No. 163 of 2018
5. RP's application under Section 60 of the IBC, 2016
6. RP's application under Section 19(2) r.w. 74 of IBC, 2016
7. RP's application for direction to CoC to submit minutes of CoC meeting
1. Recovery of CIRP costs by RP:
The RP filed IA No. 190 of 2020 seeking recovery of the CIRP costs. The Tribunal directed the Respondent(s) to file a reply within one week by serving an advance copy to the other side.
2. Challenge to the maintainability of IA No. 348 of 2018:
IA No. 348 of 2018 was filed by one of the Respondents challenging the maintainability of the application. IA No. 348 & 163 of 2018 were to be heard together and hence stood adjourned.
3. RP's application under Section 66 of the IBC, 2016:
IA No. 163 of 2018 was filed by the RP under Section 66 of the IBC, 2016. This application was to be heard along with IA No. 348 of 2018 and therefore stood adjourned.
4. Challenge to the maintainability of IA No. 163 of 2018:
IA No. 349 of 2018 was filed under Section 60 of the IBC, 2016 to challenge the maintainability of IA No. 163 of 2018. This application also stood adjourned.
5. RP's application under Section 60 of the IBC, 2016:
IA No. 349 of 2018 was filed under Section 60 of the IBC, 2016 to challenge the maintainability of IA No. 163 of 2018. This application was adjourned for further proceedings.
6. RP's application under Section 19(2) r.w. 74 of IBC, 2016:
IA No. 164 of 2018 was filed by the RP under Section 19(2) r.w. 74 of IBC, 2016, which is a penal section. The Respondent was directed to file a reply within one week by serving an advance copy to the other side.
7. RP's application for direction to CoC to submit minutes of CoC meeting:
IA No. 165 of 2018 was filed by the RP for direction to the CoC to submit minutes of the CoC meeting. The Tribunal found this application not maintainable as the CoC meeting was being conducted by the Resolution Professional. Consequently, IA No. 165 of 2018 was dismissed as infructuous.
The matter was adjourned to 11.02.2021 for further consideration.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1187
Money Laundering - smuggling of Gold - framing of charges under the PML Act - HELD THAT:- It cannot be stated that there are no prima facie materials against the accused for framing charges under the PML Act. This Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact, while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
This criminal original petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the trial Court after the charges are framed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1186
Money Laundering - predicate offence - proceeds of crime - Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Under Section 24 of the PML Act, the burden is on the accused to prove that the proceeds of crime was not involved in money laundering. In this case, M/s. Maze Group of Technology was into finance business which cannot be said to be per se a criminal activity. Even assuming for a moment that they were into a criminal activity and the sum of ₹ 15 lakhs that was given as advance by Manoharan to Kumar Ganesa Perumal was proceeds of crime, the mere fact that Kumar Ganesa Perumal agreed to sell his property to Manoharan, cannot, by itself, bring him into the net of Section 3 of the PML Act without anything more.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1185
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Rebuttal of presumption - preponderance of probability - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- The signature of the petitioner in the cheque has not been disputed and the only dispute is that the petitioner has not borrowed money from the respondent and not issued the cheque, whereas he admitted that he borrowed money from one N.K.Krishnan who is a close relative of the respondent/complainant and he also stated that he repaid the money to him, but the said N.K.Krishnan failed to return the cheque, for which the petitioner has not taken any steps in the manner known to law either by issuing notice to said N.K.Krishnan to get back the cheque or by filing any complaint after sending notice to him. Therefore, the defense taken by the petitioner is not sustainable.
The petitioner has not proved that the respondent has no capacity or means to lend the money and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of means to lend the loan is not acceptable and the same is rejected.
Once the petitioner had not denied the signature and also not established that cheque was given to one N.K.Krishnan and not to the respondent and on what date he borrowed money from N.K.Krishnan and repaid the money and on what date again he asked the cheque, the learned Magistrate and the District Judge has rightly convicted the petitioner by appreciating the evidence and materials placed before them - A reading of the entire materials on record shows that the signature was not in dispute and the defense taken by the petitioner relating to issuance of cheque to N.K.Krishnan is not established and lending capacity of the respondent also not disproved. Therefore when the signature is not in dispute, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has come into picture. No doubt presumption need not be rebutted by direct evidence and it can be rebutted by preponderance of probability, the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption. But, the petitioner has not rebutted the presumption in the manner known to law.
This Court does not find any perversity, infirmity of illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below and the revision is liable to be dismissed - Revision dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1184
Seeking the release of the passport of the petitioner - requirement of petitioner to visit America before September, 2021, failing which he will loose the benefit of green card - HELD THAT:- Let the affidavit as being requested be filed before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to learned counsel for the respondents.
Adjourned to 22.06.2021.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1183
Seeking grant of Bail - fake invoices - bogus ITC - non-existent firms - dummy sales - availment of irregular credit - offence under Sections 69 read with clauses (b), (c) & (1)1 of Section 132 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions made, facts and circumstances of the case, length of his detention in custody and nature of accusation, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail with some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned SDJM, Rourkela and GST Enforcement Unit, Jajpur, Jajpur Road, functioning under the Commissionerate of CT and GST, Odisha with the conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1182
Dishonor of Cheque - existence of legally recoverable debt or not - mis-use of cheque - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- A mere denial that the cheque is not issued for legally recoverable debt would not be sufficient enough to hold that there was no legally recoverable debt on record. The materials on record has been properly considered by the learned Magistrate which was re-appreciated by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in the first appeal. In such circumstances, even after perusing the records and in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, this court does not find any patent defect on record nor there is any error of jurisdiction or law which would entitle the accused to seek for interference by this court in this Revision Petition.
The sentence passed by the learned Magistrate which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court in so far as the simple imprisonment is concerned is excessive as there is no reason assigned for awarding simple imprisonment. Since there is no fine amount ordered against the State, if Revision Petitioner in ordered to pay fine of ₹ 3,05,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordering sum of ₹ 5,000/- as fine to the State and maintaining the compensation amount payable to the complainant in a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
The Revision Petition is allowed in part while maintaining the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, which is confirmed by the first Appellate Court is hereby set aside.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1181
Dishonor of Cheque - defence taken by the accused is that the cheque was given in the year 2006 itself in respect of some other transaction, but it has been retained by the complainant and later it was mis-used by him - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that though accused has taken a stand that cheque in question at Ex.P-1 was issued in the year 2006, to establish the same, what prevented the accused to summon the Cheque Issue Register from the Bank. So also, nothing prevented the accused to show that there was a previous transaction wherein he had tendered the cheque to the complainant by producing the counterfoil or the slips attached to the cheque book, wherein necessary details are entered by the accused during the usual course. When accused has taken the plea that the cheque came to be issued in the year 2006, it is for him to establish that cheque in fact was issued in the year 2006 and he has honoured the cheque which is preceding Ex.P-1 and which has been issued subsequent to Ex.P-1. But, no such evidence is placed by the accused in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that there was no reply sent by the accused to the statutory notice - In the absence of such evidence placed by the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate which was upheld by the first Appellate Court that the accused has failed to establish his defence and failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is based on sound legal principles and does not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever.
The finding recorded by the learned Magistrate and the first Appellate Court that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not suffering from any patent defect or error of jurisdiction nor suffering from illegality.
Admittedly, the Trial Court has taken into consideration the cheque while sentencing the accused. The learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay a fine of ₹ 1,98,000/- and out of that a sum of ₹ 1,93,000/- is ordered to pay as compensation which is the cheque amount and a sum of ₹ 5,000/- is ordered to pay as fine to the State with a default sentence - In the considered opinion of this court, when the accused has failed to establish his defence, the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the first Appellate Court ordering only fine amount to the extent of the cheque amount as compensation is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, there is no need for interference of the order of the learned Magistrate confirmed by the first Appellate Court.
Revision petition dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1180
Denial of anticipatory bail - allegation is that between 21 August 2015, when his successor was elected, and the assumption of office on 31 August 2015, the appellant had executed four pattas causing a deficit of ₹ 32,133 to the treasury - offences under the provisions of Sections 13(1)(c), (d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 - HELD THAT:- Since the charge sheet has already been filed and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 would be in order.
It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, in connection with FIR No 310 of 2017 registered at PS OP Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan - appeal allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1179
Requirement of listing the matter before Bench - HELD THAT:- The order, directing listing of this matter today, was passed on 4th December, 2020 by a Bench of Hon’ble Ms. Jyoti Singh. That order does not direct listing of the matter before any other Bench.
Neither is this the Bench which deals with writ petitions as per roster, nor is there any noting or direction, by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, directing listing of this matter before this Bench, available on record.
List this matter before the appropriate Bench, as per roster, subject to orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice on 22nd January, 2021.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1178
Seeking sanction of scheme of arrangement involving demerger - sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The scheme of arrangement is not opposed to public interest and hence the scheme of arrangement involving demerger can be approved.
Various directions with regard to holding, convening and dispensing with various meetings issued - the scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1177
Fixation/ratification of the fees of IRP/RP - Commercial wisdom of COC - HELD THAT:- Fixation of fee is not a business decision depending upon the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors - going by the aforesaid rationale it is amply clear that fixation of the fees of IRP/RP does not come within the domain of the Commercial wisdom of COC and, hence is justiciable. The aspect of ascertaining fees of IRP/RP is strictly guided by the mandate and parameters provided by the IBBI vide its circular dated 12.06.2018 bearing number IBBI/IP/013/2018.
The fixation of fee is not a commercial wisdom of the CoC. Hence, respondent no. 2 is directed to ratify the IRP fee claimed by the applicant/IRP to the tune of ₹ 2,10,000/- and reimburse the same - Application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1176
Seeking grant of bail - conspiracy to create enmity between different groups of people on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and did acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony - sections 120B, 124A, 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - HELD THAT:- The Court is unable to hold that the violent protests throughout the State did not and/or could not have had any terrorizing effect on the harmony of the innocent public at large, rather, the Court is of the considered opinion that on being provoked by the appellant, as the violent protests by burning of tyres had caused rail, highway and internal road blockade, the same is sufficient to give rise to a critical law and order situation that as a whole had threatened the security of the State. The acts of violent protests were aimed to strike terror in all sections of people in India irrespective of caste creed and religion. Moreover, by burning inflammable substance, the supplies essential for life of community in the Country was disrupted. By use of violence the appellant led mob had brushed aside the noble concept of non-violent protest, which is popularly known as satyagraha and that such conduct of paralyzing the Govt. machinery, causing economic blockade, causing enmity between groups, disruption of public peace an widespread disharmony and dissatisfaction towards the Govt., are acts which are prejudicial for national integration and such acts squarely falls within the definition of "terrorist act" as defined in section 15 of the UA (P) Act.
Having regard to the requirement of section 43D (5) of the UA (P) Act, the Court is unable to record its satisfaction that the materials brought on record, in all probability, may not lead to conviction. The materials on record prima facie disclose culpability of the appellant and his involvement in the commission of alleged offences as morefully mentioned in the charge-sheet. It may be mentioned that the Court is conscious of the fact that the duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities - The act of blocking of the public road, disrupting free flow/movement of essential goods to the public in the State, setting fire to public offices and vehicles in the garb of public protest certainly cannot be termed as peaceful democratic protests in law. In that view of the constitutional provisions, the Court is of the considered view that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances that emerged from the documents on record, it cannot conclusively be said at the present stage of trial of the case that the appellant has been unreasonably deprived of the right of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The materials relied upon by the prosecution prima facie shows that cadre/members of KMSS were trained in the use of firearms and explosives and that the appellant had not only led the protests, but had provoked people to join him and that upon directions issued by the appellant, the supplies essential to life of the community of the Country was disrupted in the State. The appellant's call was instrumental in violent protests, and damage or destruction to vehicles of military and para-military forces, which were to be used for defence of the Country.
The Court does not find any infirmity in the finding returned by the learned Special Judge (NIA) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation of commission of offences punishable under Chapter IV and VI of UA (P) Act against the appellant is prima face true. Considering the express bar imposed by section 43D (5) of the UA (P) Act, the appellant cannot be released on bail - Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1175
Seeking direction to respondent not to deposit the amount due against them, in any bank account of respondent No. 1-company, which cannot be operated upon under the joint signature of the petitioner - siphoning of funds - illegal monetary benefits by manipulating records of the company - section 242(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- It is the case of respondent No. 2 that the applicants are indulging in forum shopping and Bench hunting as the applicants have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 2020 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, with similar prayers, viz., to close the account of PNB and not to act upon instructions of respondent No. 1/company. However, the Wardha Court refused to grant interim relief. Similar prayer is made in the company petition as well as I. A. No. 664 of 2020 and I. A. No. 989 of 2020, which amounts to forum shopping. Respondent No. 2 further averred that the applicants failed to get any relief from either of the forums and the applicants are indulging in forum shopping and Bench hunting. Respondent No. 2 has further alleged that the applicants have siphoned off an amount of ₹ 56 crores unto themselves and their relatives. Applicant No. 1 alone had diverted ₹ 3.28 crores to himself and his related parties. Respondent No. 2 has further alleged that cause of action arose prior to filing of the company petition.
The applicant cannot raise issues, which relate prior to filing of petition, as provided under Order 2, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondent No. 2 further submitted that the courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of the company as long as the company functions under the articles of association - In order to avoid more diversion of funds by the applicant acting solely, the board of directors in their meeting dated June 18, 2020 passed a resolution to receive all the funds in the account maintained with Yes Bank account and instructed the debtors accordingly.
It is directed that the bank account of respondent No. 1 maintained with Punjab National Bank (PNB), Wardha as well as the bank account maintained with Yes Bank be operated by one representative from each group, viz., one signatory from the applicants' group and one signatory from the respondents' group. Accordingly, one signatory from each group shall be nominated for operating the accounts henceforth. This arrangement shall be applicable to new accounts, if any, opened hereafter by respondent No. 1/company. This arrangement shall govern until the parties resolve the differences amicably - allegations levelled by the applicants and the respondents against each other on the financial irregularities require investigation by the Registrar of Companies. Accordingly, the Registrar of Companies are directed to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the company, initiate action against the directors or persons responsible for irregularities, if any found, for siphoning off funds as alleged.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1174
Delay of 5 years or more in initiating action by the SEBI - SEBI proceedings for companies act violations - Non-payment of dividends - Show-cause notice to the Company and its Directors calling upon the noticees as to why action under Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 should not be initiated for violation of Section 205(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, complaints with regard to non-payment of dividends were registered between 2010 and 2012. Annexure-D is the screen shot of the case status. It shows that SEBI has closed the complaints between 2013 and 2014. The show-cause notice is issued in October 20, 2016. No further action is taken till issuance of communication as per Annexure-B in 2019, calling upon the petitioner to remain present during the hearing.
A perusal of the orders passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal shows that the said Tribunal has consistently held delay of five years and more in initiating action by the SEBI as unsustainable - even if petitioner is relegated to SEBI to attend the hearing as contemplated in communication Annexure-B and if petitioner were to suffer any adverse order, he can challenge the same before the Appellate Tribunal - Tribunal has decided the matter only on the point of delay without going into the merits. In this case, reckoned from the date of complaints, the delay is about four to six years in issuing the show-cause notice and seven to nine years in holding the hearing.
In this case, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to the SEBI. Hence, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1173
Seeking direction to first respondent to pay a sum of ₹ 168,85,00,000 being the sum admitted as payable to the petitioner - bills raised for the electricity supplied on a monthly basis to the first respondent - unilateral and frivolous deductions or not - demand notice under section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Power Generating Company and is in the business of supplying power to the first respondent and a major portion of the income depends on the clearance of the payments from the first respondent. From the year 2016, the first respondent had stopped making payments to the petitioner, hence, the petitioner approached the National Company Law Tribunal to start corporate insolvency resolution process against the first respondent, however, the National Company Law Tribunal dismissed the petition.
The payments made by the first respondent after May 24, 2018 itself would establish that they treated the petitioner-company as a separate entity and not along with the other two companies. The first respondent having partly complied with the memorandum of settlement dated May 24, 2018 now they cannot take a different stand and contend that since the other two companies are liable to pay the amounts to the first respondent, the petitioner-company is not entitled to claim the amount as per the memorandum of settlement dated May 24, 2018.
After deducting the sum of ₹ 135,00,00,000 paid by the first respondent to the petitioner from the total sum of ₹ 208,85,00,000 the balance payable by the first respondent is ₹ 73,85,00,000. Therefore, the first respondent is liable to pay the balance sum of ₹ 73,85,00,000 to the petitioner - the first respondent is directed to pay the balance sum of ₹ 73,85,00,000 to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1172
Business Auxiliary Service - transportation facilities to the employees of companies like M/s. Ford India Ltd., M/s. Satyam Infotech Ltd. - period from 1-10-2005 to June, 2006 - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The department does not dispute the payment of service tax on the very same activity after introduction of BSS. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, BSS is not a category carved out of BAS. It is an introduction of a new entry. Thus, when the appellant has been discharging their service tax liability under BSS after its introduction, the very same activity cannot be classified under BAS for the period prior to 1-5-2006. The view taken by the department that introduction of a specific entry is not absolving the appellant from the liability for the past period is not tenable since BSS is a new entry which was introduced w.e.f. 1-5-2006 only.
In the case of SANA ENGINEERING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, COIMBATORE [2018 (9) TMI 1723 - CESTAT CHENNAI], it was held by the Tribunal that when a new category of activity is brought out under the service tax, the same can be taxed only with effect from the date on which the new service is brought under service tax net. Department cannot claim that the very same activity was taxable under an existing category.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The demand cannot sustain on the ground of limitation also. The issue is purely interpretational in nature. Appellants have been paying service tax under BSS after its’ introduction in the Finance Act, 1994. This is accepted and admitted. There is no evidence to prove that appellants wilfully suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of service tax. The appellant succeeds on limitation also.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1171
Condonation of delay of 502 days - explanation given in the application for condonation of delay which gives only a saga of moving of file from one place to the other and that too with long interludes - HELD THAT:- The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences. The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens.
Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner(s) of ₹ 25,000/- for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks - The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1170
Condonation of delay of 1288 days in filing application - cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay, given or not - HELD THAT:- The leeway which was given to the Government/public authorities on account of innate inefficiencies was the result of certain orders of this Court which came at a time when technology had not advanced and thus, greater indulgence was shown.
The “certificate cases” filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again.
Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner(s) of ₹ 25,000/- for wastage of judicial time which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund within four weeks - Special Leave Petition is dismissed as time barred
-
2021 (1) TMI 1169
Condonation of delay of 427 days in filing application - certificate cases - HELD THAT:- The casual manner in which the State Government has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay is clear. In fact other than the lethargy and incompetence of the petitioner Government, there is nothing which has been put on record. We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them.
We have also categorized such kind of cases as “certificate cases” filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court had dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately - The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens.
Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner/State of ₹ 25,000/- for wastage of judicial time, which has its own value and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund within four weeks - SLP dismissed as time barred.
............
|
9911796707
