|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 16738 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (11) TMI 720 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - direction for suspension of sentence imposed on him by the trial court - HELD THAT:- When it is noted the appellate court is justified in directing the petitioner/accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount imposed by the trial court pending appeal as provided under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereby ordering suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioner and when the order passed by the appellate court is in conformity with the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with 389(1) of Cr.PC, I do not find any infirmity or error in the abovesaid condition imposed by the appellate court directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount imposed on him by the trial court. There is no merit in the Criminal original petition - Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 659 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Summon Order - non-applicability of the Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007 - It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prescribed procedure as provided under the Payment & Settlement Systems Act,2007, for determination of the aspect of liabilities for alleged commission of offences is provided thereunder and that the offences mentioned under the said enactment are not completely in pari materia with the provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- Even the parties to CC No. 1566/2019, 1565/2019 (out of which the impugned order arises) and CC No. 1567/19, do not relate to the same parties and apparently no such common order as the order dated 11.3.2019 could have been passed in relation to CC No. 1565/19 with other cases 1566/19 and 1567/19. Furthermore, it was also essential for the learned T....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT
Cancellation of Bail granted - Smuggling - Contraband item - Section 36A(1)(d) of NDPS Act for offences under Section 8(c) punishable under Section 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 read with Section 38 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- The appellants’ car by which they were travelling from Omerga to Hyderabad on 11.01.2018 was intercepted by the D.R.I. officials of Hyderabad Zonal Unit near the Kamkole near Hyderabad and from the possession of the appellants 45.874 Kgs of narcotic substance was recovered. Appellants’ in the statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act have stated that they have started from Omerga to Chennai in the car in which the narcotic substance was being transported. The remand of the appellants was extended from time to time till 12.07.2018 by Special Court, Hyderabad. On 11.01.2018, recovery of narcotic s....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 628 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Detention order - rejection of right to represent - preliminary submission of the petitioners is that before the Advisory Board, while the petitioners have been denied right to be represented through counsel, the respondent was represented through a counsel at the hearing - HELD THAT:- The fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India stood vitiated when they were denied the right of legal representation before the Advisory Board in the light of the fact that the respondent was, indeed, represented through counsel Mr. Jitendra Mishra. Firstly, the petitioner was never put to notice that their request to be represented through counsel before the Advisory Board was ever accepted. In fact, their representation making that request was rejected on 22.7.2020. It is also evident from the additional affidavit ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 625 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Invitation of bids for tender - qouting of double price - Section 53 B of the Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The CCI has found that the Appellant failed to define or suggest relevant market. It found it is neither necessary nor feasible to delineate the relevant market in the absence of requisite data on record particularly in the light of market emerging out of RSDOs reply which CCI received. The CCI deciphered that apart from the Opposite Party (Respondent No. 2) there are at least four other major global players in the market for rolling stock mounted GPR for Ballast Inspection in India. The Order as reproduced names of the other players. The Appellant is trying to put the burden on CCI to find out the relevant market instead of itself defining or suggesting relevant market with prima facie material. Apart from this, the order of ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 555 - SUPREME COURT
Review Petition - Restraint on transfer of disputed property - scope and ambit of the Court’s power under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - HELD THAT:- To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exerci....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 511 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grant of Compulsory Bail - Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - whether an application for a bail under Section 439 Cr.PC would be sufficient for a court to construe that the accused had availed of his right to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC if the condition stipulated therein were met? HELD THAT:- In HUSSAINARA KHANTOON & ORS. VERSUS HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA [1979 (4) TMI 159 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court had considered affidavits filed by the Superintendent of the Patna Central Jail, Superintendent of Muzaffarpur Jail and the Superintendent of the Ranchi Central Jail which indicated towards prisoners who were confined in the said jails and who had been produced before Magistrates from time to time in compliance with the requirement of the Proviso (a) to Sectio....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 508 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Interpretation of statute - validity of Rules 1 and 2 of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules - Bar Council of India as well as the Bar Council of Gujarat has a common argument to canvas that the rules framed by the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules under Section 28(2)(d) read with Section 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961 puts an embargo upon the writ applicant unless she resigns from her present employment and files an affidavit to that effect. Whether we should strike down Rules 1 and 2 of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or we should uphold the validity by adopting the principle of 'reading down' or 'reading into' so as to make the rule effective and workable and ensure the attainment of the object of the rule? HELD THAT:- Ordinarily, the....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 507 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Grant of Regular Bail - applicant has submitted that the allegations made against the applicant are vague and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature and gravity of accusation made against the applicants in the FIR, this Court is of the view that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicants for grant of bail. Moreover, the applicants assure that they will abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court and shall not commit any breach. Further I do not intend to go into the merits of the matters and I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicants. The investigation is going on and the charge-sheet is not filed and the trial would take a considerable long period of time. The applican....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act - legally enforceable debt or not - allegation is that the cheques of the petitioner/accused have been forcibly taken away by one Meena Pandi, for which, complainant was also lodged and the cheques, which were forcibly taken have been misused through the respondent/complainant and different others under the provisions of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- The cheque [ExP1] belongs to the petitioner and the same has not been denied. The cheque [ExP1] was presented for collection by the respondent/ complainant on 16.09.2010 and the same was returned with an endorsement 'account closed'. The respondent issued statutory notice dated 13.10.2010 and the same was returned unserved as 'unclaimed' and hence, the complaint was filed - Since the issuance of cheque [ExP1] is ad....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 505 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Act of Cheating - applicant states that he has got nothing to do with the alleged transaction with the 2nd accused and the defacto complainant and that it was entirely the responsibility of the 2nd accused who have agreed to arrange the job Visa as stated by the defacto complainant - HELD THAT:- The promise to arrange Visa was made entirely by the 2nd accused. He was not able to fulfill the promise, and therefore, agreed to return the amount. He entered into an agreement, which is produced before this Court, which indicates that he has unconditionally agreed to return the amount to the defacto complainant. He has also issued cheques for the amount and the cheques were not honoured and in consequence of that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has also been filed....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 504 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused - issuance of Cheque for the discharge of debt or liability - rebuttal of presumption as provided by the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- Applying the definition of the word 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138 of the NI Act, a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. Needless to say that as and when the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the cheque was executed by the accused....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 503 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - rebuttal of presumptions as envisaged by the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act - HELD THAT:- Applying the definition of the word 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. Needless to say that, as and when the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the cheque was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Sections 118 a....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 502 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - petitioner challenges the composite order taking cognizance and issuing summons on the grounds that there is no proof as to when the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon these petitioners - main contention raised by the petitioner is that the complainant in his complaint petition, has not stated as to when notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the petitioners. HELD THAT:- The deeming fiction in respect of service of notice is applicable in respect of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also if the notice is properly and correctly addressed. In this context, it is to be noted that it is not the case of the petitioners that the notice so issued is not properly or corr....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 501 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of acused - the trial court found that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Existence of offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act or not - HELD THAT:- The trial court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower court after perusing the oral and documentary evidence came to such conclusions. There are no no reason to interfere with the finding of facts by the trial court - Criminal Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 500 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - alteration of charge invoking the power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the case pending against the petitioner is initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is usually tried as a Summary Trial or as a Summons Case. In those proceedings, there is no question of framing charge. As per Section 251 Cr.P.C., only particulars of the offence will be put to the accused and there is no framing of charge in the summons Trial. Section 216 Cr.P.C. is included in Chapter XVII of the Cr.P.C. That Chapter deals about charge. Section 216 is applicable when a court want to alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. To attract Section 216 Cr.P.C. a charge is necessary. Then only it can be altered or any ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 499 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - prosecution case is that the accused has misused the blank cheque leaf and papers signed by the complainant, which is given to the 1 st accused as security and hence cheated the de facto complainant - HELD THAT:- This is not a fit case in which I can quash the entire proceedings in Annexure-2 final report. Of course there may be legal contentions to the petitioners regarding the maintainablity of the prosecution. But, when the petitioners themselves admit that this is the counter blast to a prosecution initiated by them against the de facto complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court can not quash one proceedings invoking the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The case of the de facto complainant in this case is his defence in Annexure-3 proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Application dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 498 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - offences under Sections 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act - petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. [2019 (4) TMI 1876 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 496 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cheque issued for Dishonor of Cheque - Recovery of arrears of rent - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the petitioner is the head lessor ; the second respondent is the lessee ; and the first respondent is the sub lessee. At the outset, it is to be stated that the first respondent owes no amount to either the petitioner or the second respondent as arrears of rent. On the other hand, the second respondent failed to discharge her liability to the petitioner and was in arrears of rent for certain period, i.e., August 2010, July 2011 and from 01.04.2012 to 30.09.2013 - Admittedly, the second respondent issued the cheque for a sum of ₹ 14,885/-, which was returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient", but there is no record to show that the petitioner had initiated any criminal prosecution against the second respondent u....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 462 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability - Complaint against the CEO / erstwhile Director (Petitioner), even though they were not signatory of the cheque - Personal assurance and knowledge - legal notice of demand was sent by the complainant but despite the receipt of the notice the Accused persons failed to remit the alleged outstanding amount - summon of Accused including the Petitioner - Sections 138/141/142 of the NIA - Whether the complaint and the summons can be quashed qua the Petitioner in the absence of the complainant? - HELD THAT:- The said issue is settled and the law on this is no longer res integra. A similar situation had arisen in the case of Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India P. Ltd. vs. Sukarsh Azad & Ors. [2013 (9) TMI 1188 - SUPREME COURT] decided by the Supreme Court on 10.09.2013. In the said case the Respon....... + More
........
|
