Latest news with #MMSundresh
News18
03-07-2025
- Business
- News18
HDFC Bank CEO Moves SC Challenging FIR By Lilavati Trust; Hearing On Friday
The bench, comprising Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, says the matter would be listed for hearing on Friday. HDFC Bank CEO and MD Sashidhar Jagdishan on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging an FIR of cheating and fraud registered against him on a complaint filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs the prominent Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Jagdishan, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran. The bench said the matter would be listed for hearing on Friday. 'This is an urgent matter. I request for listing tomorrow on behalf of the HDFC bank and its MD. A frivolous FIR has been lodged against the MD and the bank by trustees of Lilavati hospital who are litigating against the other group of trustees," Rohatgi told the bench. 'The bank has to recover money from them. In order to twist the arm, they have lodged an FIR through a magistrate against the MD," he submitted. Rohatgi said they had moved the Bombay High Court but three benches of the high court have so far recused themselves from hearing the matter. He said the next tentative date given for hearing in the high court was July 14. 'Everyday the bank is suffering," the senior advocate said. According to the complaint filed by the Trust, Jagdishan allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore in exchange for providing financial advice to help the Chetan Mehta Group retain illegal and undue control over the Trust's governance. The Trust has accused Jagdishan of misusing his position as the head of a leading private bank to interfere in the internal affairs of a charitable organisation. Jagdishan's plea seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) was first listed in the high court in June. The FIR against Jagdishan was registered at the Bandra police station following an order by a Bandra magistrate court under section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), based on an application moved by the Trust. He was booked under alleged charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal breach of trust by a public servant. In a public statement issued earlier this month, the Trust alleged that the Rs 2.05 crore payment was part of a larger conspiracy to 'loot" the Trust and manipulate its decision-making processes in favour of the Chetan Mehta Group. The Trust has also filed a petition before the high court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter. PTI)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
03-07-2025
- Business Standard
SC reduces cost imposed on Narcotics Control Bureau by Calcutta HC to ₹50K
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to intervene with an order directing the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) to pay ₹1 lakh cost in a case, but reduced it to ₹50,000. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran passed the order on Centre's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's June 16, 2024 order. The high court imposed the cost on the NCB over the delay in appealing against an acquittal in a case. The amount was directed to be paid to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within a week. The NCB was directed to recover the cost from its personnel involved in the process of drafting and filing the government appeal. The apex court, however, ordered the cost to be deposited by the government and not the officers. "One thing is clear. There must be either the fault of your lawyer or your officer. It has to be either one of them," the bench told the Centre's counsel. The top court continued, "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement. However, the compliance is to be made not by the officer in view of the specific statement made by the Additional Solicitor General (Centre's counsel) but by the petitioner." The law officer pointed out that in several cases, appeals were filed with delay and it was "disturbing". He said some observations from the apex court on the issue would be helpful. "Please understand your position as a lawyer. If they don't come to you, you should know what to do. You don't ask the Supreme Court to issue directions to validate your orders," the bench observed. The NCB's appeal was against the acquittal verdict of a special NDPS court in Barasat. The high court order observed that the NCB was required to apply for a leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "Narcotic Control Bureau did not do so. Narcotic Control Bureau proceeded to file a government appeal without applying for and obtaining an order under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 419(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023," it said. The high court said it had pointed it out on May 19 and then in June with the NCB counsel being told that appropriate leave under the provisions was not obtained to file a government appeal. On June 16, however, the NCB's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal along with connected applications. "In view of the conduct of Narcotic Control Bureau, as noted above, granting unconditional leave to withdraw, as prayed for, will not suffice interest of justice. Narcotic Control Bureau must be put on terms," the high court said as it saddled the NCB with ₹1 lakh.
Hindustan Times
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC halves cost imposed on Narcotics Control Bureau by Calcutta HC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to intervene with an order directing the Narcotic Control Bureau to pay ₹ 1 lakh cost in a case, but reduced it to ₹ 50,000. SC halves cost imposed on Narcotics Control Bureau by Calcutta HC A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran passed the order on Centre's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's June 16, 2024 order. The high court imposed the cost on the NCB over the delay in appealing against an acquittal in a case. The amount was directed to be paid to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within a week. The NCB was directed to recover the cost from its personnel involved in the process of drafting and filing the government appeal. The apex court, however, ordered the cost to be deposited by the government and not the officers. "One thing is clear. There must be either the fault of your lawyer or your officer. It has to be either one of them," the bench told the Centre's counsel. The top court continued, "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement. However, the compliance is to be made not by the officer in view of the specific statement made by the Additional Solicitor General but by the petitioner." The law officer pointed out that in several cases, appeals were filed with delay and it was "disturbing". He said some observations from the apex court on the issue would be helpful. "Please understand your position as a lawyer. If they don't come to you, you should know what to do. You don't ask the Supreme Court to issue directions to validate your orders," the bench observed. The NCB's appeal was against the acquittal verdict of a special NDPS court in Barasat. The high court order observed that the NCB was required to apply for a leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "Narcotic Control Bureau did not do so. Narcotic Control Bureau proceeded to file a government appeal without applying for and obtaining an order under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023," it said. The high court said it had pointed it out on May 19 and then in June with the NCB counsel being told that appropriate leave under the provisions was not obtained to file a government appeal. On June 16, however, the NCB's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal along with connected applications. "In view of the conduct of Narcotic Control Bureau, as noted above, granting unconditional leave to withdraw, as prayed for, will not suffice interest of justice. Narcotic Control Bureau must be put on terms," the high court said as it saddled the NCB with ₹ 1 lakh. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC rejects plea for Buddhist control of Bodh Gaya temple
Patna: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition challenging the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, and seeking exclusive control and management of the Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya by the Buddhist community. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A vacation bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran heard the plea, which was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bench said the matter was not maintainable before the apex court and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Patna high court. "We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the high court," the bench said. During the hearing, the judges questioned the petitioner's counsel on the nature of the relief sought. The counsel replied, "I have prayed that the Bodh Gaya Temple Act should be annulled as ultra vires." The bench responded, "Why don't you do it before the high court? How can we issue a mandamus? Please approach the high court." The petition had been filed by Sulekhatai Nalinitai Narayanrao Kumbhare, who urged the court to direct the Centre and the Bihar govt to amend the 1949 Act and hand over control of the Mahabodhi Temple to the Buddhist community. The petitioner argued that the present governance structure, which includes both Hindu and Buddhist representatives under state supervision, undermines the religious rights of Buddhists and called for full Buddhist control in accordance with their spiritual and cultural traditions. The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, was enacted to ensure better management of the Mahabodhi Temple complex, which is considered one of the holiest sites in Buddhism. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Unesco World Heritage site comprises a 50-metre high grand temple, the Vajrasana (diamond throne), the sacred Bodhi tree and six other holy locations associated with the enlightenment of Lord Gautam Buddha. A seventh site, the Lotus Pond, lies outside the main enclosure. The temple area, along with numerous ancient votive stupas, is preserved within three concentric boundaries and is situated about five metres below the surrounding land level. The ensemble is globally revered and holds immense spiritual significance for the Buddhist community. In April this year, Rashtriya Lok Morcha leader and former Union minister Upendra Kushwaha had also demanded amendments to the 1949 Act, suggesting that the administration of the Mahabodhi Mahavihara temple be transferred to Buddhists. The court's decision on Monday leaves the path open for further legal challenge, but now through the appropriate forum of the high court.
India Gazette
30-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
SC rejects plea to hand over Mahabodhi Mahavira Temple to Buddhists; asks petitioner to approach HC
New Delhi [India], June 30 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition seeking a direction to the Centre and the Bihar government to hand over the control and management of the historic Mahabodhi Mahavira Temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, to the Buddhist community. A vacation bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice K Vinod Chandran granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Patna High Court. The bench said the plea filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, directly before the Supreme Court, was not maintainable. 'How will we do it? This is not maintainable under Article 32. How can we issue a mandamus? Please approach the High Court,' said the bench during the hearing. 'We do not entertain this. Dismissed. Liberty granted to approach the High Court,' the court ordered while dismissing the plea. The petition was filed by Sulekhatai Nalinitai Narayanrao Kumbhare, who had urged the apex court to direct the amendment of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, to ensure that the control and management of the Mahabodhi Temple are handed over to the Buddhist community in keeping with their religious faith and cultural rights. The Mahabodhi Temple--a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the holiest sites of Buddhism--is administered under the 1949 Act, which entrusts control to a management committee overseen by the Bihar government, with representation from both Hindus and Buddhists. The petition submitted that the current governance structure undermines the religious rights of Buddhists and called for exclusive Buddhist control of the temple, asserting that the site holds profound spiritual significance for the global Buddhist community. (ANI)
