Live
- Dy CM directs officials to collect all critical info on caste census
- Naga Chaitanya Opens Up About His Wedding Plans with Sobhita Dhulipala
- ‘NC24’ First Look Poster: Naga Chaitanya’s Next Promises Thrills and Mythology
- Rumors Heat Up as Vijay and Rashmika Enjoy a Cozy Meal Together
- 67th annual day celebrations held at IRISET
- Actor Ali Receives Legal Notice Over Unauthorized Construction at Vikarabad Farmhouse
- Puspa 2 -The Rule: Allu Arjun and Sreeleela Set the Stage on Fire with 'Kissik' Song
- Odisha promotes ‘Karuna silk’ at IITF
- Food Poisoning in Hyderabad: Three Fall Ill After Eating Biryani from Aroma Restaurant
- Meet held on reducing GHG emissions
Delhi HC orders tracing 60,000-page record in a 2007 cheating case
The Delhi High Court has directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court to locate the untraceable 60,000-page record related to a 2007 cheating case against one S.K. Thapar, as it deals with a petition challenging the refusal to release an attached property in Uttarakhand by the Delhi Police.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court to locate the untraceable 60,000-page record related to a 2007 cheating case against one S.K. Thapar, as it deals with a petition challenging the refusal to release an attached property in Uttarakhand by the Delhi Police.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ordered the principal district judge to produce the missing record within two months. The court pointed out the voluminous nature of the judicial record and granted the specified time for retrieval.
The high court's directive stemmed from a petition filed by the legal heir of the deceased Amarpal, challenging an order passed by ACMM-II, Patiala House Courts, on April 28, 2023.
The order pertained to the refusal to release an attached property in Uttarakhand by Delhi police, citing the untraceability of a crucial order within the extensive 60,000-page judicial file.
"In these circumstances, since this document is the most essential document that would become the basis of adjudication of this matter either before this Court or the court below," noted the high court.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 15. The petitioner's counsel argued that the land in question had been mutated in the applicant's name, calling their status as a bona fide purchaser.
The state opposed the application, asserting that it was premature to determine the applicant's bona fide status at the current stage of the case. The trial court, in its previous order, had noted that the applicant was neither the victim/investor nor the accused, but a purported bona fide purchaser.
It also noted that the land in question was allegedly purchased by the accused using fraudulent means, leading to an imposed embargo on its sale, as per an order dated December 10, 2009.
