Scribd
Upload
24 views4 pages

SC221

Uploaded by

kepehip295
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views4 pages

SC221

Uploaded by

kepehip295
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

AABBCC

This Case Explanation includes important Laws, background of case, Facts of case, question
in matter, judgment and reference cases.

First
Important Laws covered in the case are,
 Section 208 of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 210 of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 211 of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 211(1) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(1) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013
 Section 212(2) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(3) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(4) of the Companies Act, 2013
 Section 212(8) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(11) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(12) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(13) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 212(14) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 213(2) of the Companies Act 2013
 Section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013
 Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013
 Section 435(1) of the Companies Act, 2013
 Section 436 of the Companies Act, 2013
 Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013
 Section 43 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008
 Section 43(2) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008
 Section (3)(c)(i) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008
 Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 436(1)(B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881
 Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
 Section 7 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
 Articles 21 of the Constitution of India
 Articles 226 of the Constitution of India
 Articles 226(2) of the Constitution of India
 Articles 227 of the Constitution of India
 Rule (2) of the Companies Rules, 2017
 Rule (4) of the Companies Rules, 2017
 Rule (5) of the Companies Rules, 2017

Second
Background of case
 This Appeal is filed in the Supreme Court of India through a transfer petition
against an interim order directing the release of the respondents on bail
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

Third
Facts of the case
 The Central Government, directed an investigation into the affairs of Adarsh
Group of Companies and (Limited Liability Partnerships) LLPs by (Serious
Fraud Investigation Office) SFIO officers. Investigating various areas, including
fund rotation, mismanagement, the role of auditors, and compliance with
statutory provisions.
 Subsequently, SFIO officers were appointed as inspectors, and investigations
began. Arrests were made based on the investigation's findings of three
accused individuals - Rahul Modi, Mukesh Modi, and Vivek Harivyasi.
 The accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gurugram. The magistrate granted remand, allowing SFIO custody for three
days.
 SFIO sought an extension of time for completing the investigation. The
Central Government granted an extension.
 Writ Petitions (habeas corpus) in the High Court of Delhi were filed
challenging the legality of the investigation and subsequent actions, including
arrests, on the grounds of expiration of the investigation period.
 The High Court held that subsequent remand orders could not justify the
continued illegal detention of the respondents and issued an interim order
directing the release of the respondents on bail.

Fourth
question in matter
 Whether the validity of remand orders under this case can be challenged in
habeas corpus petitions in Supreme Court of India?
 Whether the High Court was correct in entertaining the writ petition?
Fifth
judgment stated

 Remanding an accused is considered a judicial function, and the validity of


remand orders is not typically challenged in habeas corpus petitions. The
purpose of remand is to facilitate investigations beyond 24 hours and is a
discretionary power of the magistrate. It's obligatory for the magistrate to
satisfy themselves about the necessity of remand based on the materials
before them. Therefore it can be said that the validity of remand under this
case orders cannot be challenged in habeas corpus petitions in Supreme
Court of India.
 In Dashrath Rupsingh Radhod vs. State of Maharashtra, the court discussed
jurisdiction in criminal complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act,
noting the importance of applying legal concepts accurately. It emphasized
that the validity of remand orders is a matter for appellate or revisional
forums, not habeas corpus petitions. Despite arrests being within the High
Court's jurisdiction, challenges to remand orders should follow proper legal
channels. Therefore, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition.

Sixth
Reference cases used in judgment
 Basanta Chandra Ghose vs. King Emperor(1945) 7 FCR 81
 Naranjan Singh Nathawan vs. State of Punjab(1952) SCR 395
 Ram Narayan Singh vs. State of Delhi(1953) SCR 652
 A.K. Gopalan vs. Govt. of India(1966) 2 SCR 427
 Pranab Chatterjee vs. State of Bihar and Another(1970) 3 SCC 926
 Talib Hussain vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir(1971) 3 SCC 118
 Col. Dr. B. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Orissa and Others(1972) 3 SCC 256
 Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and Others(1974) 4 SCC 141
 Manubhai Ratilal Patel through Ushaben vs. State of Gujarat and
others(2013) 1 SCC 314
 Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 : 1994 SCC
(Cri) 1433
 In Saurabh Kumar vs. Jailor, Koneila Jail and another(2014) 13 SCC 436
 State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee(2018) 9 SCC
745
 State represented by Inspector of Police and others v. N.M.T. Joy
Immaculate(2004) 5 SCC 729
 Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and others(2000) 7 SCC
640
 Dashrath Rupsingh Radhod vs. State of Maharashtra and another(2014) 9
SCC 129
 Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another(1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999
SCC (Cri) 1284
 Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. State of Sikkim & Ors reported in (1994) Supp. 2 SCC
116 (para 16)

YYZZXX

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy