Latest news with #Nagu
Indian Express
27-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
‘May have given wrong impression': Abhishek Singhvi seeks to withdraw realtor Roop Bansal's plea in Punjab & Haryana High Court
In a notable turn of events during a hearing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on real estate developer Roop Bansal's plea to quash a corruption FIR, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought to withdraw the petition before a special bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Tuesday. The petition by Roop Bansal, director of the real estate firm M3M, seeks to quash an FIR filed by Haryana's Anti-Corruption Bureau. As the hearing began, Singhvi opened with a pointed clarification, 'I understand why, My Lord, sometimes a wrong message is given, as if we are trying to delay or not have it heard… I just deprecate that.' Singhvi acknowledged past adjournments and sought to dispel any notion of evasiveness. 'Yes, we may have given a wrong impression … I believe in being very candid with the court,' he said. He proceeded to outline what he called 'seven or eight substantive points', foremost among them being the lack of sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which he termed a jurisdictional defect. 'The interesting point is that 17A is mandatory—this is not disputed. And 17A has factually not been taken—this too is not disputed,' he said. The chief justice interjected to clarify that the judicial officer mentioned in the FIR was not before the court. 'The judge's case is not before us, so we are not dealing with his case,' Chief Justice Nagu said. Singhvi responded: 'No, My Lord, I'm talking about the allegation against me. I'm M3M. The allegation is that I conspired with the judge to get benefits. If the judge never dealt with my cases, how can I be in a 120B with him?' CJ Nagu reiterated: 'The judge concerned is not the petitioner.' Singhvi then pivoted to challenge the evidentiary basis of the FIR, citing that WhatsApp screenshots and voice recordings had not been validated by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory's reports. 'Out of four recordings, three are not matched. One is a probable match—not a confirmed one,' he submitted. Singhvi also raised objections to alleged illegal interceptions, pointing to violations of Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules: 'There is no averment of following the interception rules… and there's case law to that effect.' The senior counsel also criticised the role of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had opposed the petition. 'The ED is intervening with no locus in a predicate offence case… My clients were foolish enough not to challenge their intervention,' Singhvi said. Senior counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, said the agency's impleadment had not been objected to. Singhvi then made a candid admission. 'I don't want to risk adverse findings on my ultimate trial… This is a very strange case. I'm not seeking any relief today. I wish to withdraw this petition.' However, Chief Justice Nagu declined the request, stating: 'We are hearing you on merits… I would decline that request of yours.' Insisting on the right of an accused to withdraw a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Singhvi said: 'Surely, My Lord, a criminal accused has a right to withdraw… Look, I want to satisfy the judge's conscience. There shouldn't be any catch to it. Today, opposing me is the ED—of all people—in a predicate offence 482.' Singhvi asked the court to at least record his request, 'Kindly record my submission that I wish to withdraw it.' When Singhvi expressed concern about adverse observations affecting his trial, Chief Justice Nagu reassured him, 'Even if we record some observations, we will always say that this will not influence the trial judge.' The hearing continued with Chief Justice Nagu directing Singhvi to proceed with his arguments. The case will now be heard at 9.30 am on Thursday.
Indian Express
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Reassigned Case: Chief Justice Nagu hints at ‘bench hunting', says Bar being ‘destroyed'
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday pulled up the legal team in the Roop Bansal corruption case for seeking an adjournment before a special bench. The special bench was formed after Chief Justice Nagu withdrew the case from another bench — which heard the arguments and reserved judgment — following 'oral and written' complaints and assigned the case to himself. 'The present special bench has been created after carving and encroaching upon the time meant for division bench 1. It is unfortunate that such a request for adjournment is being made in a case registered before a Special Bench,' Chief Justice said, directing the matter to be taken up at 9.30 am on Tuesday. Earlier, the courtroom proceedings began with an advocate from the office of Senior Advocate Vijay Aggarwal praying for adjournment. The advocate submitted that Aggarwal had fallen ill in the morning and undergone a hernia surgery due to which he was unable to argue while Senior Advocate Puneet Bali was out of the country. Chief Justice Nagu noted that the special bench had been created pursuant to the order passed by the court on May 23, in which he had dismissed a challenge against his decision to reassign the corruption matter and underlined the Chief Justice's administrative control over court rosters and authority to reassign judicial work. Appearing virtually, Zoheb Hossain, counsel for Enforcement Directorate, objected to the adjournment request. 'Was this person who is not well…was he appearing on the last date or not? Because it can't be, My Lord, that new counsel are brought in who are not well, and adjournment is sought when, on the contrary, tearing hurry was being shown in this matter earlier'. At one point, Chief Justice Nagu directed the petitioner's team to summon Advocate JK Singla, who had earlier filed a fresh petition in the case. 'Where is Mr JK Singla? We will hear him only. Please ask him to come and argue the matter. Call Mr JK Singla whose power (of attorney) was filed just to get the case out of a particular Bench. This is the kind of professional ethics you are showing…You are encouraging people just to not make any effort…You are destroying the Bar virtually,' Chief Justice Nagu observed. Hossain also countered the petitioner's arguments on merit. He said Roop Bansal could not invoke protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as it applied only to public servants. 'Bansal is a businessman,' Hossain said, adding that the only other ground raised was that telephone conversations, which are being used, have been extracted without proper authority of law, and that these could not form the basis of the FIR. Hossain cited a Supreme Court ruling to highlight that these could still be used as information for filing an FIR. Additional Advocate General for Haryana, Deepal Balyan, submitted that the original record was in court custody and the investigating officer, a DSP in the state Anti-Corruption Bureau, was present. The court directed Balyan to retain the record and relieved the officer. The case The case — Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana and others — seeks to quash an FIR dated April 17, 2023, lodged by the Haryana anti-corruption branch against M3M director Roop Bansal, former CBI special judge Sudhir Parmar, and latter's nephew Ajay Parmar. The matter has had a turbulent procedural history. Initially filed in January 2025, it was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat, who recused himself on January 14. The case was then withdrawn from before the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul on February 13. A fresh petition was filed on April 7 by Advocate JK Singla — whose cases are not listed before Justice Kaul — and was then marked to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu. After arguments concluded and the verdict was reserved on May 2, Chief Justice Nagu reassigned the matter to himself on May 10. The petitioner's lawyers, including senior advocates Mukul Rohtagi and Puneet Bali had strongly objected to this, arguing that a 'matter which is heard and reserved by a Bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other Single Bench including that of the Chief Justice'. On May 23, dismissing objections to his decision, Chief Justice Nagu asserted that 'Chief Justice's powers' as master of the roster were 'wide, pervading and plenary,' exercised to 'protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in judiciary by litigants.' He further said the reassignment was to 'draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment.'
