|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1319 Records
-
2021 (1) TMI 1321 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Legality of entire proceedings of the respondents including E-Auction Sale Notice dated 29.12.2020, fixing the date of auction of petition schedule properties as 03.02.2021 under the provisions of SARFAESI Act - petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner has alternative remedy against the impugned proceedings and that no extraordinary circumstances are shown by petitioner for entertaining the present writ petition.
HELD THAT:- The Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to it.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1320 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Criminal breach of trust - criminal breach of trust by carrier - forgery for purpose of cheating - fraudulent cancellation, destruction etc., of will, authority to adopt or valuable security - falsification of accounts - presumption of innocence in favour of respondents or not - acquittal of accused - HELD THAT:- There are nothing palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. From the evidence available on record, there is nothing to substantiate the charge levelled against accused.
There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
The opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal cannot be interfered with - there are no fault with the judgment of the Trial Court - appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1319 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - scheduled offences - recording of ECIR as a prosecution exhibit - objection by the defence on the ground that the said document was not the original but a photocopy and insisted on marking of the original - HELD THAT:- Suo motu FIRs are normally registered by the police in white-collar offences where the date and timings in the FIR have least significance. The Enforcement Directorate is not conducting an investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., but, on the strength of the powers of search, seizure, recording of statements and arrest, conferred on them by various provisions of the PML Act - A person cannot be convicted or acquitted based on the entries in the ECIR form, because, an offence under the PML Act has to be proved by examining witnesses and proving documents in order to establish that the accused had involved himself in a criminal activity, acquired assets and had projected the proceeds of the crime as untainted property. In this scheme of things, the ECIR document really has no significance.
The Special Public Prosecutor placed strong reliance on Section 294 Cr.P.C. to justify his request to the trial Court for marking an office copy of the ECIR form - The Special Public Prosecutor could have obtained the original of the ECIR form from the Adjudicating Authority in New Delhi either by sending a letter to him or filing a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Instead of guiding the Court properly, he has relied upon "a non-existent provision', viz. Section 300 C.R.P."
In the worst scenario, where, the ECIR form itself is not marked during trial, that by itself, will not vitiate the trial, for the simple reason that, the objective satisfaction arrived at and recorded in the ECIR form by the Enforcement Officer that an investigation under the PML Act has to be commenced based on the knowledge acquired by him that the police have registered a case for a 'schedule offence', can, by no stretch of imagination, either lead to the proof of guilt or otherwise of the person prosecuted under the PML Act. Conviction or acquittal of an accused under the PML Act, can be based only on substantive evidence and not on the mere objective satisfaction arrived at and recorded by the Enforcement Officer in the ECIR form - an ECIR form is only an opinion of the Enforcement Officer based on the case registered for a 'schedule offence' that an investigation under the PML Act should be commenced. The melancholic part in criminal justice system is that, it is often found one blind leading another and the two finally ending up in a cul-de-sac.
The impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the prosecution to mark the copy of the ECIR form recording the objections of the defence - this criminal revision is allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1318 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Parallel proceedings - Seeking grant of bail - Recovery of tax - evasion of tax by not disclosing the details of the transactions - failure to disclose true liability to pay the tax - whether the applicant can be simultaneously prosecuted under the provisions of the VAT Act as well as for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code? - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra. One need only refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS NARAYAN K. PATODIA [2000 (4) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT] and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G.S. OILS LTD. THROUGH ITS M.D. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SHRIGOVIND AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PSO WANI, DIST. YAVATMAL AND OTHERS AND (UMESHKUMAR NARAYANLAL AGRAWAL VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH PSO WANI [2012 (10) TMI 1274 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that there could be a prosecution under both the VAT Act as well as the Indian Penal Code.
As far as the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned conceptually, a dealer like the applicant would act as an agent of the Government for recovering the tax and depositing it with the latter. It would thus tantamount to creating a relationship of a principal and an agent between the Government and the dealer. If the dealer is supposed to recover the tax it would come with a consequential liability to credit it to the Government - it is in this manner prima facie the applicant can be said to be entrusted with the money which he was liable to pay to the Government but has failed to do so.
The period for which he failed to deposit the VAT and the enormity of the amount is sufficient to disentitle him of any protection in the form of anticipatory bail - bail application dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Taxability of unincorporated associates - principle of mutuality - Applicability of decision in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE & ORS. VERSUS M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is dated 27.06.2019, whereas the judgment of the Supreme Court is dated 03.10.2019 and the Officer did not thus have occasion to take note of the same.
Hence impugned order of assessment dated 27.06.2019 is set aside and the matter remitted to the file of the Assessing Authority to re-done in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Club Limited.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1316 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Prayer for a mandamus directing the respondent to correct GSTR statements - HELD THAT:- This request ought to have been made first before the respondent, instead of which the petitioner has directly approached this Court. Thus, this writ petition is pre-mature. The petitioner is permitted to file a representation seeking the same relief as sought here and pursue the same.
Writ petition is dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1315 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Claim of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act - HELD THAT:- The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence.
The object of Section 397 CrPC is to settle a patent defect or an error in exercising jurisdiction or if the order is perverse and no court would come to such a conclusion. The orders have been passed in an application for interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Matrimonial proceedings are still pending between the parties. The findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as upheld by the learned Sessions Court is that the petitioner was not providing adequate maintenance to the respondent and since the adequate maintenance was not being paid, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards maintenance.
The Company which was being run by the petitioner did not release her salary. The respondent had to move the court and fight for getting her legitimate salary. It is not in dispute that Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. company was being run by the petitioner. After denying the respondent her salary, the petitioner is now trying to take advantage of his own wrong by stating that now since the respondent has got her salary and therefore, the order of maintenance should be modified. Even though the company is distinct from the petitioner but the company is being run by the petitioner and it can be assumed that the salary was not being paid to the respondent only at the instance of the petitioner.
This court does not want to substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the court below. It is open to the petitioner to raise all these contentions in the matrimonial proceedings pending between the husband and wife while deciding the issue of grant of alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1314 - SC ORDER
Classification of services - facilitation service by appointing a facilitation manager to supervise and manage the management and maintenance of immoveable property - whether classified under ‘Real Estate Agent Services’ or ‘Real Estate Consultant Services’? - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1313 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT inadequate inquiries were made by AO on payments made to players on winnings from lotteries/crossword puzzles and taxes to be withheld thereon - As argued inadequate inquiries were made by the learned AO on payments made to players on winnings from lotteries/crossword puzzles and taxes to be withheld thereon - HELD THAT:- It has been settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachhan [2016 (5) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT] that such an action is permissible to the Commissioner provided sufficient opportunity is given to the assessee.
From the records available before us and the order of learned Commissioner, it is not discernable whether proper opportunity in this regard was given to the assessee. Now, the issue is whether this is fatal to the order of revision ? Another concomitant issue is when the learned Commissioner has not given the opportunity to the assessee and has consequently not examined the assessee’s response, should the Tribunal fill-in the gap and give a finding that the Assessing Officer has duly examined the issue on the basis of document said to have been filed before Assessing Officer.
When the CIT has not examined the issue, the Tribunal should not jump ahead and examine the issue merely on the basis of document said to have been filed before the Assessing Officer without any indication as to whether the Assessing Officer has verified the correctness of the averments. That merely keeping the document on record, without carrying out necessary investigation which are per se required to verify correctness of the averment would lead to an error, in the sense that he has failed to carry out the requisite inquiry which can be rectified in revision.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this order of Commissioner is liable to be set aside to his file for fresh consideration as directed to examine the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
In giving the above said direction we draw support from the decision of Kapurchand Shrimal [1981 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] for the proposition that it is the duty of the appellate authority to correct the errors in the orders of the authorities below and/or remit the matter for reconsideration unless prohibited by law. In this regard, we note that there is no provision in law prohibiting us to remit the matter back to the learned Commissioner on the facts and circumstances of the case.
In our considered opinion, the above submission of the assessee’s counsel is not sustainable. We do not find that the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, by any stretch of imagination, proposes that matters cannot be remanded by the ITAT to the level of Commissioner of income tax. Hence, this limb of argument of the learned counsel of the assessee is rejected.
Thus we set aside this order passed under Section 263 to the file of the learned Commissione to decide the issue afresh giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1312 - SUPREME COURT
Suspension for misconduct - misappropriation of bank's money by affording fake credits in his various accounts - HELD THAT:- The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts Under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.
It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
In the case on hand, the charge-sheet was served upon the Respondent delinquent for misappropriation of public funds by affording fake credits in his various accounts maintained at the branch where he was serving (Mumfordganj Branch) during the relevant period. In all, 7 charges were levelled against him of grave misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his official duty and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent delinquent and due compliance of the principles of natural justice, the enquiry officer in his report while dealing with the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent delinquent specifically indicated that the details of enquiry report contained 22 pages along with documents produced by the presenting officer marked as PEX-1 to PEX-28 to establish the allegations/charges levelled against the Respondent delinquent who neither produced any document nor witness in his defence.
In the case on hand, the disciplinary/appellate authority was not supposed to pass a judgment however while passing the order dated 24th July, 1999, the disciplinary authority had taken note of the record of enquiry, including self-contained enquiry report dated 22nd May, 1999 and his prima facie opinion dated 29th June, 1999 which was made available to the Respondent employee and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and meeting out the written objections raised by the delinquent, expressed its brief reasons in upholding the finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal by its order dated 24th July, 1999 - the finding recorded by the High Court under its impugned judgment setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authority, cannot be accepted, which deserves to be set aside.
The appeals deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court impugned dated 13th September, 2018 is hereby set aside.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1311 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Validity of reassessment orders at Anenxures-A1, A2 and A3 - seeking for quashing the demand notices at AnenxuresB1, B2 and B3 issued pursuant to the orders at AnenxuresA1, A2 and A3 - HELD THAT:- Having perused the endorsements which are not speaking orders and also deeming it necessary that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before any orders are passed under Anenxures-N1, N2 and N3, endorsements at Anenxures-C1, C2 and C3 are set aside and the matters are remitted for fresh consideration on Anenxures-N1, N2 and N3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal would be filed as against the reassessment orders at Anenxures-A1, A2 and A3. However, till the disposal of the rectification applications at Anenxures-N1, N2 and N3, the respondent - Authority not to precipitate the demands raised as per the impugned demand notices at AnenxuresB1, B2 and B3.
Petition disposed off
-
2021 (1) TMI 1310 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Constitutionality of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in tJINDAL STAINLESS LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [2016 (11) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT] has settled the issue. Therefore, nothing survives fur further consideration in this writ petition.
Petition closed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1309 - SC ORDER
Service tax on Ocean Freight - what is “CIF”, and how the CIF is different from the FOB contracts - HELD THAT:- Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1308 - SUPREME COURT
Failure of the Appellant-M/s. Esjayee Impex Pvt. Ltd. to repay a Loan to Canara Bank and the consequent proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 - handing over possession of Secured Assets to Canara Bank in respect of an immovable property - HELD THAT:- The aspect of possession by the Auction Purchaser was already taken care of by our Order, dated 11.9.2020 recording that possession was handed over to the Auction Purchaser in pursuance to a Letter, dated 6.11.2019 but the backside portion was being used to store goods of the original Owners preventing full enjoyment of the property - It is also noticed that in case the Auction Purchaser was to continue to enjoy the property and the Petitioner(s) defaulted, one week's time would be granted to remove what has been stored in the back portion. Thus, the Bank will ensure that those Goods are removed within one week from today to facilitate unhindered enjoyment of the possession by the Auction Purchaser.
Learned Counsel for the Bank agreed that the Sale Certificate has to be further validated and assured that the needful will be done within two weeks. However, a submission was made that the Sale Certificate was then to be handed over to the Registering Authority for registration and payment of Stamp Duty.
The mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the Authorised Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchaser with a copy forwarded to the Registering Authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act - SLP dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1307 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI
Contempt petition - handing over of the records etc. by the Resolution Professional has been complied with - HELD THAT:- Nothing survives for consideration in this Contempt Case. Proceedings are accordingly dropped.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1306 - NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (PWM Rules), including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules - HELD THAT:- Regretfully, steps taken by the MoEF for finalizing EPR regime are too slow. We note that the PWM Rules were framed in the year 2016 in place of 2011 Rules. There is no justification for long delay in finalisation of EPR models even after more than four years of the publication of the Rules. The same may now be finalised at the earliest, preferably within three months from today.
The State level authorities also need to take necessary effective steps for enforcement, including coercive measures. EC and penal action regime proposed by the CPCB may be duly implemented by the CPCB, State PCBs/PCCs, State Level Monitoring Committees and all other concerned authorities. District Environment Committees constituted in pursuance of order of this Tribunal in Shailesh Singh vs. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Ors. may also monitor compliance of PWM Rules and give their respective reports to the State Level Committees.
The CPCB may continue to coordinate with the State Level Monitoring Committees, the State PCBs/PCCs or any other authorities with reference to the steps taken by the State Level Monitoring Committees in coordinating with the concerned Local Bodies, Gram Panchayats, Waste Generators, Producers, Importers, Brand Owners, Recyclers, Manufactures, Retailers and Street Vendors in accordance with the rules. Whenever, necessary CPCB may issue further directions from time to time in the light of experiences gained considering different suggestions and viewpoints, including the suggestions of the Oversight Committee for State of UP.
The application is disposed of.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1305 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Imposition of anti-dumping duty on the import of the good Flexible Slabstock Polyol from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - methodology used for arriving at the figures of normal value, export price and landed value, was not informed to the petitioner - insufficient time provided by the Designated Authority to file comments under disclosure statement.
Two petitions filed now - in both the petitions the challenge is to the final findings dated 01.09.2020 of the Designated Authority, where it was concluded that that the product under consideration has been exported to India from the subject countries below its normal value, thus resulting in dumping.
HELD THAT:- Having surveyed the statutory framework as above, we may now advert to the impugned final findings dated 01.09.2020. In the introductory portion of the final findings, it is mentioned that Manali Petrochemicals had filed an application before the Designated Authority under the Act read with the Anti-dumping Duty Rules for imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of Flexible Slabstock Polyol from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. On the basis of sufficient prima facie evidence submitted by Manali Petrochemicals, a public notice dated 18.09.2019 was published in the Gazette of India initiating the investigation. While detailing the procedure followed in the investigation, it is mentioned that the period of investigation was from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 (12 months) though the injury investigation period covered three years i.e., 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017- 18 plus the period of investigation. Designated Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the known producers / exporters and to the governments of the subject countries.
Interestingly, while the name of Dow Chemical as the importer of the subject good has been mentioned, there is no mention about Expanded Polymer Systems as an interested party. However, there is acknowledgment that submissions were received from Indian Polyurethane Association. It further mentions that an oral hearing had taken place on 04.03.2020 but another oral hearing was held on 15.07.2020 in view of change of the Designated Authority. It is also stated that the essential facts of the investigation were disclosed to the known interested parties vide the disclosure statement dated 21.08.2020.
Claim of confidentiality - HELD THAT:- The Designated Authority held that on being satisfied he had accepted confidentiality claims wherever warranted and accordingly those were not disclosed to other interested parties. However, he has stated that wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide sufficient non-confidential version of the information filed on confidential basis.
Normal value, export price and determination of dumping margin - HELD THAT:- It is stated that Designated Authority considered the views of the domestic industry and of the interested parties whereafter normal value, export price and dumping margin were determined and disclosed in the form of a table. Designated Authority observed that the dumping margins are more than the de minimis limits.
After an analysis of various aspects including factors affecting domestic prices, magnitude of injury margin, etc., Designated Authority noted that the injury margin is positive and significant for co-operating producer and subject countries for the period of investigation.
The law is well settled that be it a quasi-judicial or an administrative body, if any decision making affects the rights of a party, principles of natural justice have to be followed. Even in those cases where the statutes are silent, courts have read into those statutes the need and requirement for adhering to the principles of natural justice to ensure that the decision making process is just, fair and reasonable.
Section 9C of the Act, which we have already extracted above, gives right to an aggrieved party to file appeal before the CESTAT under section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order of determination of dumping in relation to import of any article. Sub- section (2) thereof is illustrative. It says that such an appeal shall be filed within 90 days of the date of order under appeal, though extendable if the appellant satisfies the CESTAT that it was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Admittedly, in both the petitions the challenge is to the final findings dated 01.09.2020 of the Designated Authority. As per the final findings, Designated Authority has concluded that the product under consideration has been exported to India from the subject countries below its normal value, thus resulting in dumping. Domestic industry has suffered material injury due to dumping and the material injury has been caused by the dumped imports - Stricto sensu, the final findings of the Designated Authority is a recommendation. Such a recommendation cannot be construed to be an order for the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 9C of the Act. It will become an order only upon acceptance of the recommendation of the Designated Authority by the central government and upon issuance of consequential notification. It is from such date that the period of limitation for filing appeal would commence. Prior to issuance of such notification by the central government, the final findings of the Designated Authority would remain a recommendation which cannot be construed to be an order.
Thus, filing of the two writ petitions at this stage appears to be premature. Respondent No. 2 is yet to take a decision on the impugned findings. Certainly, respondent No. 2 will have to apply its own independent mind taking into consideration relevant factors and thereafter take a decision on the recommendations one way or the other. Needless to say, representations submitted by the parties including the one submitted by Indian Polyurethane Association on 28.09.2020 shall be considered by respondent No. 2 before taking such decision.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1304 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - Principles of parity - as per the FIR, the petitioner Kalyan Singh was allegedly armed with a knife but it is apparent from the injury reports of the injured Om Prakash and Thakara Ram that no injury whatsoever was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon - HELD THAT:- As per Section 439 Cr.PC., the Sessions Court as well as the High Court while considering the bail application/s of arrested accused have concurrent jurisdiction. Needless to say that while considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, parity has to be maintained and it should be ensured that unless any distinguishable feature or any special circumstance is in existence, the bail of a subsequently arrested accused on same footing should not be dismissed when other/s with similar allegation/s have been extended indulgence of bail.
In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioners by order dated 23.12.2020, referred to his own order dated 05.09.2020 whereby, the bail application of Swaroop Singh was rejected. However, the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by this Court whereby, Swaroop Singh whose case stands on the same footing as the petitioners, was admitted to bail was conveniently omitted. This indicates the gross disregard of this Court’s order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Barmer.
The approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in denying bail to the petitioners even though similarly situated accused has been granted bail in the very same case is deprecated as such an approach not only tantamounts to a total disregard of this Court’s order but also increases this Court’s dockets flooding it with unwarranted bail applications and also prolongs the custody of the accused without any justification. It is henceforth expected from all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Rajasthan that where similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by this Court and the bail application of other accused comes up for consideration, this Court’s order/s shall not only be referred to while deciding such bail application/s but shall be followed unless exceptional/distinguishable features exist.
It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely Khet Singh S/o Lal Singh and Kalyan Singh S/o Lal Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.221/2020, Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer shall be released on bail, subject to the compliance with the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1303 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Denial of revival of petition by invoking Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - non-compliance with the settlement terms - HELD THAT:- It appears that the Terms of Settlement providing a repayment schedule was incorporated in the order thereby making it an order/ decree of the Court and once this was the position, giving liberty to the Financial Creditor to come back can be interpreted on no hypothesis other than that the revival of CIRP would be sought for non-compliance with the Terms of Settlement. Therefore, even on merit, there are no substance in the instant appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1302 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cognizance/summoning order u/s 276C (2) r.w.s. 278E of I.T.Act - application u/s 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the Criminal Complaint - HELD THAT:- As applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers made in this application. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is for expeditious disposal of his bail application.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order, stands refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. [2004 (10) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2009 (3) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT]
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of
........
|
