Latest news with #AhsanuddinAmanullah
New Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC asks Delhi govt to issue order declaring Lodhi-era 'Gumti of Shaikh Ali' protected monument
In a significant step, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Delhi government to issue a fresh notification to declare the historic, Lodhi-era monument "Gumti of Shaikh Ali" as a protected monument under the law. The two-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, passed the direction to the Delhi govt after hearing an appeal filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri, who sought a direction to declare the Gumti as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). Suri had knocked the doors of the apex court after his plea was earlier dismissed by the Delhi High Court. During the course of the hearing on Wednesday, the top court went through some report filed by the Delhi government, including a notification and clarified that it was not 'happily (properly) worded'. 'Let the notification (to declare the monument as a protected one under the law) be re-issued by the Delhi government,' the bench told the Delhi govt. Making it clear that there should not be any illegal structures or encroachments near the area, the court asked the authorities to demolish the illegal structures, if any, inside the monument site. It directed the court commissioner to visit and inspect the concerned area and apprise the bench about the work undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued.
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Declare Lodhi-era 'Gumti of Shaikh Ali' protected monument: Supreme Court to Delhi government
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 16, 2025) directed the Delhi government to issue a fresh notification to declare the Lodhi-era monument "Gumti of Shaikh Ali" a protected monument under law. The dispute over the monument came to limelight when the top court directed the Defence Colony resident welfare association to vacate its structures and pay ₹40 lakh to the archaeology department of the Delhi government as compensation for occupying the historical place since the 1960s. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a plea filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri, who sought to have the Gumti declared a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). The plea was filed in the top court after the Delhi High Court dismissed his plea in 2019. The top court has been regularly passing directions to ensure the removal of encroachments, illegal occupation, and beautification of the monument and its surrounding area. On Wednesday (July 16, 2025), the bench examined a Delhi government notification and said it was not 'happily worded'. 'Let the notification (to declare the monument as a protected one under the law) be re-issued by the Delhi government,' the bench said. Protected monuments under the AMASR Act benefit from legal protection, conservation efforts, and restrictions on activities around them to ensure their preservation for future generations. Such monuments are safeguarded against damage, destruction, and unauthorized construction or excavation in their vicinity. The bench asked the authorities to demolish the illegal structures inside the monument area. The bench also asked the court commissioner to inspect the area and apprise the bench about the work undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued. It asked the authorities, including the archaeology department, to make and execute plans to beautify and preserve the monument and its surrounding areas. The bench previously directed the MCD and others to remove all encroachments around "Gumti of Shaikh Ali". It also ordered the MCD and DJB to vacate and hand over their office spaces to the Land and Development Office. The bench subsequently reprimanded the MCD for continuing to operate an office near the monument and granted 48 hours to it to clear the site of 'lock, stock, and barrel'.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court: Company can file criminal case against fake product sellers
Supreme Court (ANI) NEW DELHI: In a decision that would pave way for corporates to protect their interests under criminal law, particularly relating to sale of counterfeit/fake products, Supreme Court has ruled that an aggrieved company is entitled to pursue criminal case against accused in such cases under Criminal Procedure Code to file appeal against acquittal or for enhancement of sentence. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra said that the term 'victim' used in CrPC includes in its definition a company. It quashed Rajasthan High Court order which had said that a company could not file an appeal against an acquittal order. Facing an unusual situation where a person selling fake product on its name got acquitted in a criminal case but it was not allowed to file an appeal, Asian Paints moved the apex court through Singh Law Chambers. It submitted that the term 'person' in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC also includes a 'Company or Association or body of persons and it would fall within the contours of the term 'victim'. Advocate Ajay Singh, appearing for the company, told SC that the case was registered on a complaint filed by company's representative for infringement of its copyright and loss/injury in terms of its reputation and financial losses and the company should be allowed to file appeal against acquittal of accused. Agreeing with Singh's plea, the bench said the company suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold as having been manufactured by it. "The appellant (Asian Paints) would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the appellant's brand," the bench said, while explaining how the company is a victim in the case. "Section 2(wa) of the CrPC defines 'victim' in plain and simple language as a 'person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged...'. It is clear that Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow or restricted meaning," the bench said, while allowing the plea of Asian Paints. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Creating fear to stop people helping law is a terror act: Supreme Court
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Indicating that an offence cannot be said to be a terror act only if an accused is convicted under an anti-terror law, Supreme Court on Tuesday said creating an atmosphere of fear to prevent people from taking the side of law by killing an army informer is also a terrorist act despite anti-terror law not being invoked in the case. A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S V N Bhatti did not agree that the killing of three civilians, including the army informer, in J&K with an AK-47 was not a terror act because the conviction was not secured under an anti-terror law, and expressed its reservation in entertaining a remission plea of a convict who has spent 27 years in jail in the case. Prisoner Ghulam Mohammad Bhat took the stand that he was not convicted under an anti-terror law, but only under the Indian Penal Code for murder, and therefore, his act cannot be termed a terrorist act. The J&K government told SC that a convict undergoing life imprisonment for a terror act was not entitled for remission under state policy. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the prisoner, said Bhat was convicted only under IPC section 302 (murder) and the Arms Act, and not under the then anti-terror legislation TADA. "Nothing was proved in court to attract TADA provisions. The trial court or the HC never found it to be a terrorist act," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo Additional solicitor general K M Natraj, appearing for the J&K government, submitted that explosive devices, including a weapon to launch grenades, were also reportedly recovered from the scene of incident and it was an act of terror, it was not a simple murder. Agreeing with Gonsalves, the bench said, "If you want to create fear among people to ensure that no one approaches authorities against the illegal act then it is a terror act and we cannot close our eyes. "This was done to create havoc to ensure that no one dares to side with the law, then it certainly carries the characteristics of a terrorist act and remission cannot be granted under the policy. You have to challenge the remission policy. " SC, however, allowed Gonsalves's plea to be allowed to challenge the J&K remission policy within the ongoing proceedings.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Companies affected in IPR cases can press criminal charges as 'victim': SC
The Supreme Court has held that a company can be called a 'victim'' under the Code of Criminal Procedure and it can file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases, including violations of intellectual property rights (IPRs). This means that corporate entities affected by violations of such rights could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a plea by Asian Paints, which had suffered losses due to the accused allegedly selling counterfeit paints. Asian Paints moved the apex court against the Rajasthan High Court judgment dismissing its appeal against the acquittal of Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paints under the brand name 'Asian Paints'. The High Court had dismissed the appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, reasoning that an agent of Asian Paints and not the company was the 'complainant' and therefore the latter couldn't file an appeal against the acquittal. The Supreme Court, while disagreeing with this reasoning, questioned whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The proviso to Section 372 grants victims the right to appeal against acquittal of the accused, conviction for a lesser offence, and inadequate compensation. If the court orders insufficient compensation for the victim, the victim can appeal. The apex court Bench held it was clear that 'Section 2(wa) of the CrPC has thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow and restrictive meaning'. 'In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand,' the judgment said. Asian Paints, a manufacturer in the paints industry for over 73 years, had engaged IPR consultancy firm M/s Solution to track and take action against counterfeiters. During a market investigation in February 2016, the firm had found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop Ganpati Traders in Tunga, Rajasthan, owned by Ram Babu. After police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paint were seized. The trial court acquitted Ram Babu, after which Asian Paints challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed Asian Paints' appeal.
