This case involves applications filed by Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, claiming compliance with a condition imposed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 30 October 2017 for the grant of bail. The condition required them to deposit Rs 750 crores. The applicants argue that they have deposited an amount exceeding Rs 750 crores and have suffered incarceration for nearly three years due to their failure to meet the deposit condition. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for Delhi Police opposed the applications, arguing that the deposited amount included amounts from other special leave petitions and that the applicants failed to deposit the required amount by 31 December 2017. The ASG also argued that a two-judge bench could not modify conditions imposed
…The case revolves around Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, who sought bail from the Supreme Court. A condition for their bail, as per the court's order on 30 October 2017, was the deposit of Rs 750 crores. The applicants claimed they met this condition, having deposited over Rs 750 crores. However, the Delhi Police, represented by the ASG, opposed this, stating the deposit included funds from other special leave petitions and that the initial deadline of 31 December 2017 was missed. The ASG also argued that a two-judge bench couldn't alter conditions set by a three-judge bench. Intervening counsel for flat buyers and the amicus curiae highlighted a 'fundamental change' due to a forensic audit by Grant Thornton. This audit revealed significant siphoning of funds from
…Sign in to view the parties.
Supreme Court orders Sanjay Chandra and Ajay…
Deadline for depositing…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
This case involves applications filed by Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, claiming compliance with a condition imposed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 30 October 2017 for the grant of bail. The condition required them to deposit Rs 750 crores. The applicants argue that they have deposited an amount exceeding Rs 750 crores and have suffered incarceration for nearly three years due to their failure to meet the deposit condition. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for Delhi Police opposed the applications, arguing that the deposited amount included amounts from other special leave petitions and that the applicants failed to deposit the required amount by 31 December 2017. The ASG also argued that a two-judge bench could not modify conditions imposed
…The case revolves around Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, who sought bail from the Supreme Court. A condition for their bail, as per the court's order on 30 October 2017, was the deposit of Rs 750 crores. The applicants claimed they met this condition, having deposited over Rs 750 crores. However, the Delhi Police, represented by the ASG, opposed this, stating the deposit included funds from other special leave petitions and that the initial deadline of 31 December 2017 was missed. The ASG also argued that a two-judge bench couldn't alter conditions set by a three-judge bench. Intervening counsel for flat buyers and the amicus curiae highlighted a 'fundamental change' due to a forensic audit by Grant Thornton. This audit revealed significant siphoning of funds from
…Supreme Court orders Sanjay Chandra and Ajay…
Deadline for depositing…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.