This case was filed in 2018 only. On Wednesday, District and Sessions Judge Sujata Kohli, while hearing arguments of the two sides, said, “This notification was passed in 2018. He is an alumnus of the Film and Television. He made his debut as a film director in 2010 with the film Anandhapurathu Veedu.
The consequences can be very dangerous… if we go behind that… it had no jurisdiction and they were doing this trial… the entire trial goes. I am only saying it aloud, don’t take it otherwise. What would be the result of this if we say that without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings stand vitiated.
Though re-arguing the matter would be a troublesome exercise, we would be happy if this court had passed the order. But I would tender my sincere apologies to her (Geeta Luthra) because subsequently I happened to go through the notification dated 23 February, 2018 which was the basis of this order. The court has heard my arguments… and my learned friend’s arguments in reply, only my rebuttal arguments for two days were remaining.”Read: Priya Ramani deserves acquittal as she showed truth, public good of her statements, court toldAdvocate Bhavook Chauhan, appearing for Ramani, told the court, “Initially, we would be making a joint request. There is no bar for the court to hear a matter for or against MPs/MLAs. So, it’s not that simple.”During the hearing, Akbar’s counsel, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, told the court, “What has happened is both of us are making a joint request: Can we go back to the same court of Mr Pahuja? The reason is that two years ago, it was marked to that court… Now for some reason, the court has transferred it on the ground that cases against MPs/MLAs have to be in that court, but perhaps not the cases by them.
0 kommentar(er)
