Home | About Indlaw | Advertise | Sitemap | Feedback | Contact Us
 

Support | Info? | Renew
NEWS BY SUBJECT

Tax Laws
Corporate Laws
Trade Laws
Criminal Laws
Consumer Protection
Supreme Court
Intellectual Property
Banking Laws
Environment Law
Media & Entertainment
Advocates & Judges
STATE NEWS

New Delhi
Maharashtra
Uttar Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
West Bengal
Gujarat
Punjab
  MORE
INTERNATIONAL NEWS

Legal News
Immigration law
Tax News
Technology law
Regulatory Issues
Company & Finance
Policy
Banking News
International Law
Online Legal Issues
Trade & Business
Law & Development
INDLAW UPDATES
Judgments
Legislations & Rules
Notifications & Circulars
Practice Direct.& Forms
Reports
By Industry Wise
By Policy Groups
INDLAW RESOURCES


Newsletters
Practice Tech
Court Lists
Court Calendar
Directories
Professional Store
FAQs on Laws
Education Center
Budget
Exim Policy
Credit Policy

 

 
Search News Advance Search

SC declines to transfer cases outside Gujarat

08 January, 2007

The Supreme Court has declined to transfer three civil suits outside Gujarat, seeking about Rs 22.6 crores as damages from Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other senior Gujrat officers for the killing and injury of the victims of the 2002 communal riots in the State.

Petitioners Imran Mohammad Saleem Dawood, a riot survivor, Shameema Dawood and Shireen Dawood, two widows of the victim had sought transfer of three civil suits pending in Sabarkhanta district courts of Gujarat, on the grounds that a free and fair trial was not possible in the State, as defendent number one was the incumbent Chief Minister of the State and no witness would be able to depose freely and without fear.

A bench comprising Justices K G Balakrishnan and D K Jain permitted the petitioner to withdraw their petitions but refused to grant them liberty to approach the Court again at a later stage.

Senior Counsel Indira Jaisingh, appearing for Imran, contended that the Chief Minister was personally responsible for the acts of omission and commission during the riots.

She also pleaded that everyone who had dared to stand up against the rioters has been victimised and in such an atmosphere of terror, a free and fair trial was not possible and the apprehensions of her client are well-founded.

Pleading for transfer of the cases to Maharashtra she also contended that even the Head of Intelligence during the riots - Sreekumar has stated before the Nanavati Commission that there were telephonic instructions from the Ministers not to act against the rioters and Mr Modi had himself accompanied the charred bodies of kar sevaks from Godhra. While turning down the plea of the petitioners to transfer the trial from the District Court to the State High Court, the Court made it clear that it has equal faith on the district judiciary and in fact the disposal of the cases in the district courts is more tedious than in the High Court.

All three petitioners are British nationals and one of the defence taken by the defendent is that a foreign national cannot file a suit for damages. The Apex Court said that the trial court was quite competent to decide the issue.

(UNI)


Copyright © 2007 Indlaw Communications Pvt. Limited. (ICPL).
All rights reserved.
ICPL shall not be liable for the adequacy of the information, any mistakes, in accuracies or improper display of content and for any actions taken in reliance there on.


Related News

Indlaw Channels

Arbitration
Articles & Reviews
Banking Law
Community
Company Law Online
Consumer Protection
Crimes

Employment Law
Human Rights
Incometax
Indlaw
India Laws
Indirect Tax
News
Indlaw.net
Intellectual Property
SC Judgments
Sales tax
Students & Education
TradeLaw Online