TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Notice Ensures Ongoing Proceedings; Petitioner in Related Cases Granted Withdrawal, Resulting in Dismissal.</h1> <h3>Union of India & Anr. Versus A. Rajkumar & Anr.</h3> The SC, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, issued a notice for SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3358-3360/2024, ensuring proceedings continue in the HC. For ... Seeking withdrawal of the special leave petitions - Money laundering - proceeds of crime - issuance of summons - it was held by High Court that 'This Court finds prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners and hence, considering the serious prejudice that is likely to be caused on account of repeated summons being issued by the respondents to the petitioners in these writ petitions, is inclined to grant interim protection' - HELD THAT:- The special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. Issues:1. Issue notice returnable in the week commencing 15.07.2024.2. Permission sought to withdraw special leave petitions.3. Dismissal of special leave petitions as withdrawn.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, heard the matter regarding SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3358-3360/2024. The Court directed the issuance of notice returnable in the specified week and mandated that notice should be served through all modes, including dasti. Furthermore, the proceedings before the High Court were to continue, with a directive for the petitioners, who are respondents before the High Court, to file their counter affidavit/reply within three weeks. This decision signifies the Court's active involvement in the case and its commitment to ensuring due process and timely progression of legal proceedings.2. In relation to SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3309-3311/2024, the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the special leave petitions. The advocate indicated that the petitioner, A. Rajkumar, would assert all pleas and contentions available in law during the hearing of the special leave petitions filed by the Union of India and the Directorate of Enforcement. Subsequently, considering the advocate's statement, the Court granted permission for the withdrawal of the special leave petitions. This aspect of the judgment reflects the Court's adherence to procedural fairness and the petitioner's right to make strategic decisions regarding legal actions.3. Following the petitioner's request to withdraw the special leave petitions and the acknowledgment of the petitioner's intention to present arguments during the hearing of other related petitions, the Court proceeded to dismiss the special leave petitions as withdrawn. This final decision underscores the Court's respect for the petitioner's choice to withdraw the petitions and affirms the legal consequences of such a voluntary withdrawal. The dismissal of the petitions signifies the conclusion of the specific legal actions initiated by the petitioner in this context.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
