-
2006 (7) TMI 744
... ... ... ... ..... ourt reported in 1986(4) S.C.C. 416 (Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and ors.)12. The detenu had surrender after the detention order and, therefore, the Court held that the order of detention was justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. This case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. Therefore to sum up, merely because the de....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 743
... ... ... ... ..... may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper no judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous Fir....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 742
... ... ... ... ..... ntiff-opposite party No. 1 had assured him that she would withdraw her claim against the Petitioner. Such a stand taken by the Petitioner is stoutly denied by the Defendant-opposite party No. 1. No other ground has been taken in the petition filed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte order. It is not understood as to how the Petitioner took twelve years to know that the Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has not kept her promise even if it is accepted that such a promise had been ....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 741
... ... ... ... ..... by now and to wait from 2002 for the redressal of his grievances. He deserves to be compensated satisfactorily. 6. In the result a) This Crl. R.P. is allowed in part; b) The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are upheld; c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) and in default to undergo simple impris....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 740
... ... ... ... ..... dent company has failed to discharge its dues and inability to function in accordance with the provision of Companies Act, writ large on its face. 15. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the company showed its inability to pay the amount of petition. Upon going through the averments made in the petition and submissions made by the learned advocate for the parties, record of the case and considering the fact that the company has lost it's substratum, financial viability to run its affairs in accordance with provi....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 739
... ... ... ... ..... the plea that the same is barred by time in view of the notice served by the complainant. As such, the plea of the respondent is not only self-contradictory but an after-thought also and has been apparently carved out to resist the claim of the complainant thereby frustrating the provisions of law. 14. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to interfere with the findings returned by the Trial Court. 15. It may be pointed out that the Trial Court dismissed the complaint by limiting its observations on th....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 738
... ... ... ... ..... by providing an opportunity to both sides. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal is hereby set aside by allowing the appeal. The accused-Byrappa @ Byregowda is now in the custody. Therefore, the Learned X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, shall secure the accused from the central prison and proceed to dispose of the matter. The fee of the Learned Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs. 2,000.00. We have noticed in several cases the Trial Court have closed the prosecution side on the ground that the witnesses....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 737
... ... ... ... ..... right for cross-examination of a witness, notwithstanding the fact that the statutory provision in Section 244(1) employs expression evidence. 16. Thus, it follows from the above discussions that the proceedings before the Criminal Court at a stage prior to Section 203/204 Cr.P.C. will be inquiry. The statement of a complainant to be recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. will be evidence. In these circumstances, Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act squarely applies and it will be permissible for the Court to receive ....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 736
... ... ... ... ..... ned Counsel for the complainant/non-applicant No. 1, there were averments in complaint specifically stating that the accused were in-charge of and responsible to company for conduct of its business. In S.V. Muzumdar's case, it was held that whether a person is in-charge of or is responsible to the company (firm) for conduct of the business is to be adjudicated on the basis of material to be placed by the parties. So, firstly it is for the complainant to aver in the complaint and thereafter to place material in support ....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 735
... ... ... ... ..... greed to allot the plot, whether he is entitled for allotment of the same plot when it was allotted to somebody else and when the Court considers these aspects to come to a conclusion whether it amounts to breach of trust, which entitled the complainant to get any damages etc., are matters to be decided by the Civil Court. As there is no prima facie material in the complaint given by the complainant to attract the ingredients of Section 406 or 420 of I.P.C., I am of the opinion that the continuation of the investigation wo....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 734
... ... ... ... ..... h crimes repeatedly or persistently and prima facie there should be continuity in the commission of those offences. (See Ayub alias Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan v. S.N. Sinha 1990 CriLJ 2232). From one single transaction though consisting of several acts, a habit cannot be attributed to a person. 10. Judged in the background of legal position delineated above the order of detention cannot be maintained because it only refers to one act. There is also no material to justify the conclusion that the accused was habitually commi....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 733
... ... ... ... ..... 1.12.2003. 9. At the time of hearing on the point of sentence on behalf of the accused, the sentence imposed by the convicting Magistrate has been brought to my notice. In the said case, for default in payment of the amount due on the cheque of ₹ 1,00,000/-, the learned J.M.F.C., was pleased to sentence the accused to undergo S.I. for two months and to pay a compensation of ₹ 1,00,000/-, and in default ordered the accused to undergo six month S.I. With a view not to have disparity in the sentence, I hereby sent....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 732
... ... ... ... ..... suit cheques represent an amount of ₹ 1.90 lakhs which was not at all the debt or the liability of the accused towards the Complainant and, therefore, it could not be said that the suit cheques were issued by the accused to the Complainant towards debt or a liability. It is well settled that when a cheque is for an amount more than due by the accused, Section 138 of the Act is not attracted. In this context, reference could be made to a decision of this Court in M/s. Pawan Enterprises v. Satish H. Verma(2003 CRI.L.J........ + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 731
... ... ... ... ..... for issue and return of notice on the respondent. 11. In this result (a) This revision petition is allowed in part. (b) The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are upheld. But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of ₹ 60,000/- as compensation an....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 730
... ... ... ... ..... u D., Adv. Mr. R. Rajagopalan, Adv. Mr. M.P. Vinod, Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Adv. Mrs. Seema Jain, Adv. Mr. Dileep Pillai, Adv. Mr. J. Vellapally, Sr. . Mr. Manu Nair, Adv. for Mr. S.A. Shroff Co. ORDER Delay condoned. Heard. We see no reason to interfere. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 729
... ... ... ... ..... f H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors. 1985 3SCR676 , it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal AIR2004SC280 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. AIR2004SC1923 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR2005SC540 . 16. In the instant case, the appellant has styled the petition as PIL though it relates to a tende....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 728
... ... ... ... ..... ry, which was not conducted by the assessing authority at the time of assessment and therefore remand order cannot be interfered with on this ground. 10. As regards question No. 2 is concerned, the said question does not arise for consideration, firstly in view of answer of question No. 1. It clearly appears from the order Annex. A-l, which is an assessment order passed by the ITO that there was no enquiry in the matter whether the income which is derived from the agricultural land is the income of the assessee-firm or its....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 727
... ... ... ... ..... s noted above has been given in the circumstances indicated above. 9. In some cases, this Court after noticing that refusal by appropriate Government to refer the matter for adjudication was prima facie not proper, directed reference instead of directing reconsideration. (See Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab (1984)IILLJ396SC , Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Management of India Cement Ltd., V. Veerarajan and Ors. v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1987)ILLJ209SC , Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Del....... + More
-
2006 (7) TMI 726
... ... ... ... ..... Arijit Prasad,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 725
... ... ... ... ..... next ground relates to deleting the addition of ₹ 86,15,370 on account of excess stock pertaining to M/s. Acryplast Pvt. Ltd. At the time of hearing, the counsel of the assessee stated that this ground can be allowed. It was submitted that in case sister concern of the assessee firm; the Tribunal has deleted the addition and has held that the addition to this extent has to be added in the hands of the assessee. 30. In view of these facts, we allow this ground of the department and confirm the order of the Assessing O....... + More
