Skip to main content

SC rejects CBI chief Ranjit Sinha's plea to gag media

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected CBI director Ranjit Sinha's plea to gag media from reporting on the contentious visitors' logbook at his Delhi residence even as Sinha claimed it was invasion of his privacy.

Sinha told a bench led by Justice H L Dattu that media should be restrained since reports on who had been meeting in private was damaging his reputation but he court shot back that the media was responsible enough to understand its role.

The bench adjourned the matter for Monday while asking applicant's counsel Prashant Bhushan to file an affidavit into the issue along with the logbook and all other documents that he wished to put on record.

Sinha's counsel Vikas Singh had objected to the application by 2G petitioner NGO CPIL, saying they must also disclose the source of information and also vouch for its authenticity before seeking actions against Sinha.

The bench said that Bhushan, CPIL' s counsel shall file the application in accordance with the SC Rules.

Media reports on Sinha's logbook had suggested that he had been meeting accused in 2G spectrum allocation scam as well as in coal scam.

Subsequently Bhushan sought actions against Sinha and moved an application before the court.

Article referred: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/sc-rejects-cbi-chief-ranjit-sinhas-plea-to-gag-media-from-reporting-on-visitors-logbook/1285525

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more