Latest news with #Ors
Herald Sun
08-08-2025
- Business
- Herald Sun
Supreme Court matters for Friday, August 8
Here is a list of matters listed in the Victoria Supreme Court today. Today's court listings are published as part of News Corporation's commitment to public interest journalism and are compiled from information made publicly available by the courts in each State and territory. The list is a public record of entities appearing before the relevant court and there is no suggestion whatsoever of any wrongdoing by anyone named in these lists. Court 1, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. R v. Mark LUDBROOK Court 1, Ground Floor, Old High Court 450 Little Bourke Street, Melb. Dubber Pty Ltd (ACN 150 843 164) v. Stephen Vincent McGovern & Ors. Court 10, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. Bagshot Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 655 330 742) & Ors. v. Huntly Property Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 612 975 407) & Ors. Court 11, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. R v. Rocky RUSSO Court 12, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. In the matter of the Estate of Christopher Hylton Brown (deceased) Court 13, First Floor 210 William Street, Melb. Environment Protection Authority of Victoria v. Landfill Operations Pty Ltd (ACN 603 300 358) Court 14, First Floor 210 William Street, Melb. CGM Accounting Pty Ltd (ACN 682 719 393) v. James Edward Mulcahy & Ors. Mulcahy & Co Accounting Services Pty Ltd (ACN 105 360 325) in its capacity as manager of the partnership of trusts conducting the business known as Mulcahy & Co & Ors. v. Christopher Gerard Mulcahy & Ors. Court 15, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. R v. Erin PATTERSON Court 2, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. R v. L F Court 2, Ground Floor, Old High Court 450 Little Bourke Street, Melb. Mega Jackpot Pty Ltd ATF Mega Jackpot Trust (ACN 156 051 955) (ABN 95 256 544 035) v. Performance Property Services Group Pty Ltd ATF The Performance Group Unit Trust (ACN 119 107 050) (ABN 50 937 280 345) & Ors. Court 3, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. R v. Jogan-Mohi KEPA Court 3, Ground Floor, Old High Court 450 Little Bourke Street, Melb. Shorland Fisheries Pty. Ltd (ACN 006 160 372) & Ors. v. State of Victoria Court 4, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. R v. Daniel DEVLIN R v. Jodie Rebecca HILL Court 5, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. Refuse to Lose Pty Ltd (ACN 646 189 924) as trustee for the Refuse to Lose Trust & Ors. v. Jim Kostakis & Ors. Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ACN 123 123 124) v. Drain Masta Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 626 653 432) Melco Resorts (Macau) Limited v. Jian Hong Wu Court 6, First Floor 210 William Street, Melb. Patricia Margaret Burke v. Australian Executor Trustees Limited (ACN 007 869 794) (as successor at law to Sandhurst Trustees Ltd and Sandhurst and Northern District Trustees Executors and Agency Company Limited) (who is sued in its capacity as the Executor of John Burke, Dorothy Margaret Burke and Richard Thomas Burke, deceased) Court 7, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. Xufeng Lun & Ors. v. Barry Road Project Pty Ltd (ACN 605 828 877) as Trustee for the Barry Road Project Unit Trust & Ors. DMHA Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 613 360 026) v. Daniel Eric Hackett In the Matter of Abdel Masseh Pty Ltd (ACN 100 281 249) Court 7B, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. Century Mine Rehabilitation Project Pty Ltd (ACN 614 818 683) & Ors. v. RoyaltyOne Pty Ltd (ACN 611 602 530) & Ors. RoyaltyOne Pty Ltd (ACN 611 602 530) v. Century Mine Rehabilitation Project Pty Ltd (ACN 614 818 683) & Ors. In the Matter of Roberts Construction Group Pty Ltd (ACN 641 105 580) Court 8, Ground Floor 210 William Street, Melb. Environment Protection Authority Victoria v. Quaker Houghton Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 000 014 175) Courtroom 10, William Cooper Justice Centre Seventh Floor, 223 William St, Melb. Vasiliki Papanastassis (as Executor of the Estate of Arthur Papanastassis) & Ors. v. Vasiliki Papanastassis (as Executor of the Estate of Alexandros Papanastassis) & Ors. Catherine Thomson & Ors. v. Graeme Wallace Thomson Andrew John Taylor (who sues as Executor of the Estate of John Reuben Yule Taylor, deceased) v. Nicole Marie Taylor (who is sued as Executor of the Estate of John Reuben Yule Taylor, deceased) Graham Trevor Hall & Ors. v. Lendor Pty Ltd (ACN 095 408 316) (in its capacity as trustee of the Wendy Hall Family Trust) & Ors. In the matter of an application by Christopher Con Stroumos (as the Administrators of the Will and Estate of Victor Con Stroumos, deceased) & Ors. Stacey Meletis v. Nicholas Meletis & Ors. Australian Executor Trustees Limited ABN 84 007 869 794 (in its capacity as executor of the Estate of Kenneth John Ryan) v. Darren John New (in his capacity as executor of the Estate of Doreen Anne New) & Ors. ACN 663 642 046 Pty Ltd (ACN 663 642 046) in its capacity as trustee of the Cassar Family Trust & Ors. v. Michael Anthony Cassar (in both his personal capacity and in his capacity the purported trustee of the Cassar Family Trust) & Ors. Slawinski Albert Paul v. Slawinski Marek John & Ors. Kent Daryl Timmins & Ors. v. Stephen Schembri (in his capacity as the substituted executor and trustee of Betty Lorraine Windsor, deceased) In the matter of an application by EGMA Ltd (ACN 004 988 630) as trustee for the Chester Trust In the matter of the Estate of (deceased) In the matter of the Estate of Warren Honey (deceased) In the matter of the Estate of YOK SUN CHAN (deceased) In the matter of the Estate of Betty Lorraine Windsor (deceased) Courtroom 11, William Cooper Justice Centre Seventh Floor, 223 William St, Melb. Chashampal Singh Gill v. Timothy Kaine trading as Kainelaw Australian Lawyers (ABN 54 846 251 062) Courtroom 13, William Cooper Justice Centre Eighth Floor, 223 William St, Melb. Brian Harbrow v. Trustees of the Christian Brothers & Ors. Yvonne Faye Cartwright v. State of Victoria Larissa Jayne Gawthrop v. Bendigo Health Damien Robert Simpson v. McColl's Transport Benjamin Martin v. City of Greater Bendigo Brooke Stevenson v. Seymour Pony Club Incorporated & Ors. Jasmine Bartlett v. Melbourne Anglican Diocesan Corporation Ltd Susan Jennifer Yates v. Raymond Boyce Lauder & Ors. v. Forbo Floorcoverings Pty Ltd Robert John Smith v. Reenre Pty Ltd ACN 130854 241 (formerly named Reliable Engine Reconditioning Pty Ltd) & Ors. Adam Palmer v. The State of Victoria & Ors. R C v. Ballarat and Queen's Anglican Grammar School Frances Sanders v. Archbishop Peter A Comensoli & Ors. Peter Adam Finnerty v. Bishop Paul Bernard Bird Thomas Ratcliffe v. State of Victoria & Ors. Kurt Rosario (a pseudonym) v. Trustees of the Christian Brothers Leonard Snyder (a pseudonym) v. State of Victoria & Ors. Corrado Vindigni v. Trustees of the Marist Brothers Kevin Walton v. State of Victoria & Ors. Damien Baker v. Trustees of the Christian Brothers Zhen Elizabeth Fong-Jones v. Flow Chemical Pty Ltd & Ors. Peter Spencer v. Australian Community Media & Ors. Fuross Kassar & Ors. v. Samuel Kee & Ors. Courtroom 14, William Cooper Justice Centre Eighth Floor, 223 William St, Melb. In the Matter of Victoria State Emergency Services Volunteers Association Incorporated (Registration Number A0000013K) In the Matter of Perrydotcom Pty Ltd (ACN 169 926 283) (in liquidation) In the Matter of Ernest Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd (ACN 050 025 968) In the Matter of Gemwood Projects Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 614 106 053) ATF Gemwood Projects Discretionary Trust Courtroom 5, William Cooper Justice Centre Second Floor, 223 William St, Melb. Wayne Williams v. Amaca Pty Ltd (under NSW administered winding up) (formerly known as James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd) Christopher Kavanagh v. Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd & Ors. Alisha Lasky v. Pacey Jayden Pettina Courtroom 6, William Cooper Justice Centre Third Floor, 223 William St, Melb. Hale Corp Pty Ltd (ACN 122 193 257) v. Cheng Lam Ng & Ors. Courtroom 8, William Cooper Justice Centre Seventh Floor, 223 William St, Melb. Ahmed Mahdi Pty Ltd (ACN 134 266 229) v. Ripple Effect Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 628 016 811) & Ors. Craig Minogue v. Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety & Ors. Courtroom 9, William Cooper Justice Centre Seventh Floor, 223 William St, Melb. Nicholas Barry & Ors. v. Portland District Health & Ors. Tania Wood v. Yvonne Cymbalist & Ors. George Goddard v. Bendigo Health Care Group Sharon Tipper v. H J Heinz Co Aust Ltd Darrin Carman (a pseudonym) v. State of Victoria Rebecca Warnock (State Trustees Ltd appointed as the Administrator) v. Violet Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 143 404 068) (trading as Melton Willows SRS) Transport Accident Commission v. Kevin John Walters Lionel D'Cruz v. Western Health Pamella Walkenhorst v. Western District Health Services & Ors. Bimla Chaudhary v. Vani Peddi Rick Pretty v. State of Victoria Johnny Di Mezzo v. Woolworths Group Limited (ACN 000 014 675) & Ors. Caitlin Woods v. The Royal Women's Hospital Karen Dossis & Ors. v. Wyndham Clinic Pty Ltd (ACN 145 831 545) & Ors. Alexandra Kaufmann v. Latrobe Regional Health Daniel Butcher v. Maxwell, Robert Murray Yates Shayne Pickering v. Australaw Pty Ltd (Trading as Kelso Lawyers) Green Court, Ground Floor 459 Lonsdale Street, Melb. Angus Rawlings (a pseudonym) v. DPP In Chambers Stephen Pummeroy v. Homes Victoria & Ors. Robert Kidd v. The State of Victoria & Ors. Practice Court Business In the Matter of BDO Services Pty Ltd (ACN 134 242 434) Kent Bruce James v. Keybridge Capital Limited (ACN 088 267 190) & Ors. Commercial Court Duty Judge Business On the Papers Gormac Management Company Pty Ltd (ACN 004 343 702) (in its own capacity and as trustee of the Overs Investment Trust) & Ors. v. Gormacile Pty Ltd (ACN 058 266 461) (in its own capacity and as trustee for the Gormac Unit Trust) & Ors. Banner Capital Management Limited (ACN 600 738 181) & Ors. v. Pancon Pty Ltd (ACN 055 961 665) (Receiver and Manager Appointed) & Ors. In the Matter of Total Seal Waterproofing (VIC) Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 138 827 175) In the Matter of Dyno Dynamics (Aust) Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 103 293 983) In the Matter of J & G Flooring Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 663 355 771) In the Matter of Caydon MP No 1 Development Pty Ltd (ACN 605 707 720) (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) Owners Corporation Plan No. RP017731 v. Yin Wang Red Court, First Floor 459 Lonsdale Street, Melb. Copper (Qld) Investment Pte Ltd (formerly EMR Capital Investment (No.6B) Pte Ltd) v. Carl Hallion (as the agent of each secured party under the deed of mortgage dated 17 September 2018) & Ors. SCV Mediation Centre L6, William Cooper Justice Centre, 223 William St, Melb. In the Matter of Yes Care Pty Ltd (ACN 616 318 417) Brighten Home Loans Pty Ltd (ACN 620 839 983) v. Rucmal Dissanayake & Ors. Intelligent SCM LLC v. Seaway Logistics Pty Ltd (ACN 094 204 609) Via Email In the Matter of Strategic Conferences Pty Ltd (t/as The Conference Partners) (ACN 613 578 608) Director of Public Prosecutions v. Sibel Atalay The previous court list article for Victoria Supreme Court can be viewed here.
Indian Express
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Tablighi Jamaat verdict shows how easily fear can be weaponised to target marginalised groups
In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, when fear and uncertainty gripped the nation, the Tablighi Jamaat congregation in Delhi had become a lightning rod for blame, stigma, and sensationalism. The Delhi High Court's recent verdict (in Mohd Anwar and Ors vs State NCT of Delhi), quashing FIRs against 70 Indian nationals accused of sheltering attendees, exposes a troubling truth — while the virus spread silently, another contagion raged unchecked: The epidemic of misinformation and prejudice. In a detailed judgment running into 51 pages, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna discharged the Indian nationals and others who were accused of 'sheltering attendees of Tablighi Jamaat' in their homes during Covid-19. The Court held, 'In these peculiar circumstances, the question of human rights arose whereby their movement was curtailed on account of the pandemic and they were compelled to remain in the Markaz, where they had already congregated since prior to the Declaration of Lockdown. The congregation had not been subsequent to the Notification under Section 144 CrPC. They were helpless people, who got confined on account of lockdown.' The High Court also said, 'The continuation of these Chargesheets would tantamount be abuse of the process and also is not in the interest of Justice, in terms of the principles enunciated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).' The court's sharp observation — that there was no evidence that the accused spread Covid or violated prohibitory orders — raises uncomfortable questions. Were these individuals unfairly vilified in a media trial that outpaced facts? Did the rush to assign blame overshadow the real failures in pandemic management? This judgment of the Delhi High Court, is not just a legal vindication but a mirror to be held up to society, reflecting how easily fear can distort justice. In the FIRs, the accused were held for violating Section 144 of the CrPC and flouting disaster management laws. However, the Delhi High Court ruling dismantled these claims, noting that the accused were already present at the Markaz before the lockdown and they hadn't congregated afterward, nor was there proof they knew of the prohibitory orders. This was not the first time that criminal proceedings have been quashed against Tablighi Jamaat members. Even in December 2020 (State vs Mohd Jamal), the Saket district court in Delhi had acquitted 36 foreign nationals who were held by the police. While acquitting all of them, the court said that they had been picked up from different places so as to maliciously prosecute them. Earlier when the Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions regarding fake news about Jamaat members, then Chief Justice C V Ramana flagged an observation, saying that the problem is everything in this country is shown with a communal angle by a section of the media. The country is going to get a bad name ultimately,' adding 'I don`t know why everything is given a communal angle,' he observed. The Tablighi Jamaat episode will be remembered not just for its legal outcome, but for what it revealed about India's pandemic-era psyche. When the judiciary had to step in to correct a narrative hijacked by hysteria, it exposed the perils of justice delayed and democracy distorted — by unchecked prejudice. The real 'super-spreader' wasn't a religious gathering, but institutional overreach and the toxic blend of misinformation. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale that in times of crisis, the line between vigilance and vilification is perilously thin. While all the accused have been discharged, the prejudice which has been amplified through biased news reporting and unverified broadcasts will stay with them forever. The episode, it seems, was never about public health violations, but more about how a community was scapegoated, humiliated and portrayed as the reason for 'spreading' Covid-19. A public health crisis was made into a communal witch hunt. Beyond the courtroom, this episode exposes a deeper malaise: How easily fear can be weaponised to target marginalised groups. The stigma attached to the Jamaat's name lingers, even after its exoneration by the judiciary. Reputational damage, after all, is far harder to undo than legal charges. If we have to learn anything from this whole episode of malicious prosecution, it is that public health emergencies demand unity, not division. The writer is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
Indian Express
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court sends Yediyurappa's appeal against prosecution in land case to larger bench, cites judicial ‘propriety'
The Supreme Court Monday deferred its verdict on former Karnataka chief minister B S Yediyurappa's appeal against prosecution in a land denotification case, citing judicial 'propriety'. The court noted that the matter involved legal questions already under consideration by a larger bench in a different case and tagged Yediyurappa's plea to that case. The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was considering Yediyurappa's appeal that raised the question of the need for prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute public servants. The bench, which reserved its judgement in the batch of matters on April 10, said Monday that while drafting the judgement, it noted that another two-judge bench had dealt with the very same question in a case titled Shamin Khan vs. Debashish Chakrabarty and Ors. The bench refrained from deciding the case as it was of the view that the reference pending since 2018 should be decided first. 'When we were about to start working on it, we realised that there is one another order passed by a coordinate bench that is of April 16, 2024…Shamim Khan versus Debashish Chakrabarty and others, the very same issues are now again referred to the larger bench. So we felt that propriety demands (that this too be referred to the larger bench). Therefore, we have said this,' said Justice Pardiwala. 'As far as maintaining judicial discipline, the coordinate bench of this court has refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue, which is under reference to a larger bench. We deem it appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred matter Manju Surana versus Sunil Arora and others. Registry directed to place these matters before the honorable chief justice of India for appropriate honors,' Justice Pardiwala said, reading from Monday's order. He added, 'in this order also, we have formulated the issues.' Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for Yediyurappa, said, 'It is our lapse that we did not point this (pending larger reference) out. Extremely sorry.' The case relates to allegations that Yediyurappa, as deputy chief minister in 2006, denotified land acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board in Bengaluru North taluk to set up a hardware park, thereby causing a loss to the state exchequer. A trial court dismissed the complaint against Yediyurappa and then minister for large and medium-scale industries Katta Subramanya Naidu. But the Karnataka High Court in 2021 set aside the trial court order and directed the lower court to take cognisance of the charges against them. Yediyurappa subsequently approached the Supreme Court, challenging the high court order.
