Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
proflie-avatar
Login
exit_to_app
DEEP READ
Schools breeding hatred
access_time 14 Sep 2023 10:37 AM GMT
Ukraine
access_time 16 Aug 2023 5:46 AM GMT
May that spark not be extinguished
access_time 2 Dec 2023 8:55 AM GMT
A Constitution always in the making
access_time 27 Nov 2023 11:43 AM GMT
Debunking myth of Israel’s existence
access_time 23 Oct 2023 7:01 AM GMT
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightIndiachevron_rightNational Herald case:...

National Herald case: HC terms Gandhis’ applications as ‘infructuous’

text_fields
bookmark_border
National Herald case: HC terms Gandhis’ applications as ‘infructuous’
cancel

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday termed as “infructuous” the applications moved by Congress President Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul and some other party leaders alleging a “different treatment” was meted out to a challenge filed by them in the National Herald case.

The Congress leaders in their application had opposed the transfer of the case from the court of Justice Sunil Gaur who had part-heard the matter for eight months to another court of Justice P S Teji.

Justice Gaur on Thursday termed their “applications” as infructuous as the matter has been listed before him by the high court registry.

The judge also said that he had not recused from the matter and added that the petitions came back to him as it was part-heard by him.

Even senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sonia Gandhi, agreed with the court that the applications had become infructuous and also added that they can be withdrawn.

The court, thereafter, said it will hear arguments in the matter later in the afternoon.

The Gandhis in their application had said their petition challenging a trial court order in the case was transferred in violation of the procedures and practice being followed by the court.

The application also said that their challenge petition ought to have been listed before the bench of Justice Gaur before whom the matter was pending for over eight months and was heard by him at length on several occasions.

“The matter being actually part heard ought to have been listed before the bench of Justice Sunil Gaur before whom the matter was pending for over eight months and was heard by him at length on several occasions.

“Even as per the established procedure and practice of this court, the registry ought to have placed this matter before the very same Judge where the matter was part heard especially when the same has been clarified and appended to the Roster Modification Notice itself,” the application said.

Show Full Article
Next Story