Muthuvel Palani. M vs. The Director (Cbi) Office Of The Central Bureau Investigation
AI Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) filed by Muthuvel Palani M. The case was dismissed because the petitioner, who was appearing in person, failed to appear before the Court on two occasions despite the matter being called for hearing. This procedural dismissal highlights the critical importance of party presence in court.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Muthuvel Palani M filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9998/2017 in the Supreme Court, challenging a final judgment and order dated November 8, 2017, issued by the High Court of Delhi in WPCRL No. 3100/2017. The case was listed for hearing on April 9, 2018. The petitioner, appearing in person, failed to appear before the Court on two occasions when the matter was called. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution.
Timeline of Events
High Court of Delhi passed impugned final judgment and order in WPCRL No. 3100/2017.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) filed in Supreme Court.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) registered in Supreme Court.
First hearing date in Supreme Court.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) called for hearing; petitioner failed to appear on two occasions.
Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition for want of prosecution.
Key Factual Findings
The petitioner, Muthuvel Palani M, who was appearing in person, failed to appear before the Court when the matter was called on the first occasion.
Source: Current Court Finding
The petitioner also failed to appear on the second occasion when the matter was called.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Court's Reasoning
The court's decision to dismiss the special leave petition was based solely on the non-appearance of the petitioner, Muthuvel Palani M, who was appearing in person. The court noted that no one appeared when the matter was called for hearing on the first occasion, and again on the second occasion, leading to the dismissal for want of prosecution.
- Strict Adherence To Procedure
Impugned Orders
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
The order is a procedural dismissal for non-prosecution, not addressing any substantive legal issue, and therefore has no precedential value on points of law.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9998/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-11-2017 in WPCRL No. 3100/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
MUTHUVEL PALANI.M Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR (CBI) Respondent(s)
(With appln.(s) for amendment, de-tag the petition, exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and permission to appear and argue in person)
Date : 09-04-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
For Petitioner(s)
Petitioner-in-person (N/P)
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
On the first occasion when the matter was called, no one has appeared. None has appeared on the second occasion.
The special leave petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Assistant Registrar