SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

MLA Fund Misappropriation Case in Mukhtar Ansari Bail Refuses: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In denying bail to former MLA Mukhtar Ansari, who is currently incarcerated in connection with a case of misappropriation of MLA funds for 2012-13, the High Court of Allahabad referred to Ansari as a feared white-collar criminal, an interstate mafia, and a social scourge.

According to the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, Ansari is a repeat offender who began his criminal career in 1986 but managed to avoid a single conviction.

In this case, a FIR was filed against Ansari last year for the misuse of Rs. 25 lac in MLA funds that were allocated to the school, but an inspection revealed that the funds were not utilised properly at the school in question.

Ansari then filed a petition to quash the FIR, stating that he has been imprisoned for the past 17 years despite having committed no wrongdoing.

Ansari added that the District Administration is responsible for verifying the veracity of his and the schools' recommendations.

Nonetheless, the High Court noted that evidence suggests that money withdrawn from the Vidhayak Nidhi was used to expand an existing school of which Ansari is the founder, and not to establish a new school, as the money was originally intended for.

According to the Bench, if an incumbent MLA transfers funds from his Vidhayak Nidhi to the President of his own party, the MLA is liable for any wrongdoing.

Significantly, the court stated that Ansari has a lengthy criminal record, despite the fact that he has been elected six times as an MLA.

The court referred to his election as the ugliest aspect of democracy, noting that he faces prosecution in nearly two dozen cases, yet the public elected him MLA six times in a row.

The court denied bail to Ansari in this case after concluding that he is a suspect who stole public funds through Vidhiyak Nidhi and distributed them to his loved ones.

The Court requested that the UP government form a committee led by the Speaker of the Assembly and comprised of three senior bureaucrats to audit Vidhayak Nidhi and its utilisation.

D.D: 13 JUNE, 2022

Mukhtar Ansari VERSUS State of UP

Latest Legal News