LAW
Supreme Court on Liability of Contemnor
Delhi Development Authority, Petitioner v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and another, Respondents.
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripooranan, JJ. Constitution of India, Articles 129, 142 - Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Section 12- Contemnor ought not enjoy/keep fruits of his contempt - Procedure/technical objections should be overruled to ensure justice between parties.
The principle that a contemnor ought not be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well-settled. This salutary rule has to be applied and given effect to by the Supreme Court, if necessary, by overruling any procedural or other technical objections. Article 129 is a constitutional power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142, all such objections should give away. The Court must ensure full justice between the parties before it.
(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2005)
Supreme Court on Corruption
Delhi Development Authority, Petitioner v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and another, Respondents.
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripooranan, JJ.
Constitution of India, Article 300-A - Property acquired by holder of public office by indulging in corrupt and illegal acts - Forfeiture of - Law as to- Necessity to enact.
A law providing for forfeiture of properties acquired by holders of "public office" (including the officers/posts in the public sector corporations) by indulging in corrupt and illegal acts and deals, is a crying necessity in the present state of our society. The law must extend not only to properties acquired in the name of the holder of such office but also to properties held in the names of his spouse, children or other relatives and associates. Once it is proved that the holder of such office has indulged in corrupt acts, all such properties should be attached forthwith. The law should place the burden of proving that the attached properties were not acquired with the aid of monies/properties received in the course of corrupt deals upon the holder of that property. Such a law has become an absolute necessity, if the canker of corruption is not to prove the death-knell of this nation. According to several perceptive observers, it has already reached near-fatal dimensions. It is for the Parliament to act in this matter, if they really mean business.
1994 AIR SCW 2652 and (1993) 3 WLR 1143, Rel. on.
(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2005)
Supreme Court On Withdrawal of TADA Cases
R.M. Tewari, Petitioner v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, Respondents.
J.S. Verma and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Section 321-Terroris and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987), Sections 3, 19, 20- Withdrawal of prosecution - Not permissible mechanically, merely recommendations of review committee public prosecutor must satisfy himself that it is fit case for withdrawal.
In case of detention under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987) withdrawal from prosecution is not to be permitted mechanically by the Court on an application for that purpose made by the Public Prosecutor. It is equally clear that the Public Prosecutor also had not to act mechanically in the discharge of his statutory function under Section 321, Cr. P.C. on such a recommendation being made by the Review Committee; and it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to satisfy himself that it is a fit case for withdrawal from prosecution before he seeks the consent of the Court for that purpose. Hence, when in the instant case the Public Prosecutor did not fully appreciate the requirements of Section 321, Cr. P.C. and made the applications for withdrawal from Prosecution only on the basis of the recommendations of the Review Committee, the action of Public Prosecutor was improper.
(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2047)
The Tiger's Whimper
Editorial, The Pioneer, 24 August, 1996
Since Mr. Thackeray is not known for knee-jerk reactions, analysts are also bound to see deeper meaning into the overwhelming enthusiasm he has displayed in liaising with ruling United Front luminaries, first Sancho Panza Chand Mohammad Ibrahim and then the "boss" himself. In the interim, the Shiv Sena chief's gratuitous offer to team up with other regional forces has, understandably, set tongues wagging. Coming in the wake of persistent assertions by the Gujarat rebel, Mr. Shankarsinh Vaghela, that he intends to seek the Tiger's blessings to "expose" his erstwhile compatriots, speculation over the Shiv Sena's hidden agenda must be causing a few nightmares at the BJP headquarters Indeed, it would appear that the first symptoms of paranoia are beginning to grip the Sena leadership which has, therefore, turned coquettish at Mr. Deve Gowda 'i hesitant overtures. The canny politician that he is, Mr. Thackeray cannot be unaware that playing footsie with the UF cannot be a substitute for good Government in the State.
