|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 17445 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.
- 2021 (3) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator - international commercial arbitration or not - Jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - association or body of individuals under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) and not under Section 2(1)(f)(i) - whether the requirements of sub-clause (i) to Section 2(1)(f) have been met, in which case it is unnecessary to go to sub-clause (iii), as under Section 2(1)(f), “at least one of the parties” must fall under sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 2(1)(f)? - HELD THAT:- The respondents have themselves applied to become distributors of Amway products in India as a sole proprietorship concern under the relevant forms issued by the appellant, read with the Code of Ethics. In ASHOK TRANSPORT AGENCY VERSUS AWADHESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER [1998 (3) TMI 701 - SUPR....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT
Arbitral Award - Time Limitation for filing petition - whether the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 would commence from the date on which the draft award dated 27.04.2018 was circulated to the parties, or the date on which the signed copy of the award was provided? HELD THAT:- In an arbitral tribunal comprising of a panel of three members, if one of the members gives a dissenting opinion, it must be delivered contemporaneously on the same date as the final award, and not on a subsequent date, as the tribunal becomes functus officio upon the passing of the final award. The period for rendering the award and dissenting opinion must be within the period prescribed by Section 29A of the Act. There is only one date recognised by law i.e. the date on which a signed copy of the final award is received by the parties,....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 79 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking condonation of delay in filing claim affidavit - Order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) - HELD THAT:- The order dated January 16, 2018 cannot be said to be an order passed in adjudication on merits. Order impugned in the present petition passed by the DRAT has considered the same and records the background of the lis between the parties. It records that on June 29, 2020 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (applicant No. 2 therein) had itself submitted that since the record in the case was bulky and it required detail arguments, instead of virtual hearing, physical hearing may be taken in the case and had in fact, consented for a short adjournment. Further on July 20, 2020 matter before the DRAT came to be adjourned on the request of both the parties. According to the petitioner delay was required to be ....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - validity of FIR by the Accused against the complainant - contractual dispute - the private respondent-complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending before the learned Magistrate, the impugned FIR is lodged with the same allegations - HELD THAT:- As per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. It also provi....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 1116 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - debt payable to the complainant present or not - misuse of cheque - Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The learned courts below have given consistent finding in favour of the opposite party no. 2 that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt. This court finds that the learned courts below have given consistent finding of facts after due appreciation of the evidences on record and have rightly held the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This court also finds that the basic ingredients of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been satisfied in the present case and accordingly, the judgement of conviction of the petitioner does not call for any interference in revisional jurisd....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 1108 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - allegation of Receipt of Monthly Bribe - Tax officers - It was alleged that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there was no checking or verification of the documents or goods, while being transported to and from the State of Punjab - alleged register maintained by the Munshi cannot be looked into for the purpose of implicating the petitioner in the said FIR as there is no proof regarding the fact whether these books were maintained in the regular course of business nor is there any certificate to that effect - non-compliance of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended - HELD THAT:- In the celebrity judgment of Devender Kumar vs. CBI [2019 (1) TMI 1665 - DELHI HIGH COURT], it has been held that by incorporating Section 17A as it reads by itself, the intention of the Legislature ....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 1047 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Heroin - Alleged Recovery of 2.850 kgs of Heroin from the Office of Dart Air - Cross-examination of independent witnesses - Name of the appellant as mentioned in the Airway Bill - Testing of the contraband - Alleged Recovery of 180 grams of Heroin from the Premises of the Appellant - HELD THAT:- There are several questions that arise in the context of the evidence led by NCB. The first question that arises is why would a person who had already booked a consignment come to the courier agency on the next day to enquire about the parcel. Such enquiries could have been made telephonically and it may have been possible to make it online as well. However, Mr. Manchanda submitted that that is a matter of secret information and therefore, there is no evidence in this regard required to be led. This contention is not persuasive. Cross-....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 979 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - seeking one effective opportunity to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence - Section 45 read with Section 73 of Negotiable Instruments Act for examination of the hand writing expert and for the report of the FSL - HELD THAT:- Regarding first application the contention of the petitioners was that the cheque in question had been stolen by Mr. Davinder Kalra @ Raju Kalra, proprietor of the complainant Company with the help of unknown person and was misused by hatching a criminal conspiracy with the complainant. Neither the handwriting nor the ink of the cheque matched in any manner. The cheque had been manipulated and fabricated by the complainant. Said Davinder Kalra was unable to explain as to how the cheque, which was a bearer cheque, was presented and how it was crossed and made into an account payee cheque........ + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 978 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Seeking a decree of the amounts - Commercial Summary Suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - the advocates for the plaintiff sent a notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the defendant inter alia stating that the defendant had acknowledged the debt due and payable to the plaintiff and in case of failure to pay, the plaintiff would be constrained to initiate criminal action under section 138 of the said Act - failure on the part of Defendant to respond to the said notice or make repayment - HELD THAT:- Though serving a notice under section 80 of the CPC is mandatory, the same is capable of being waived. Naturally, whether there is a waiver or not, would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the plea for want of notice under sect....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 973 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Compliance with the condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in the form of bank draft within 60 days - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that once bail was granted to the petitioner on the condition of deposit of 20% within a period fo 60 days and thereafter a period of about 1½ years has elapsed and the petitioner has not deposited 20% of the compensation amount, the learned Appellate Court was justified in cancelling the bail because express condition of bail has been violated by the petitioner. The reliance made by the petitioner on Vivek Sahni's [2019 (7) TMI 1561 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], is also of no avail in view of the fact that now the law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Surinder Sing....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 970 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Smuggling - ganja - Whether the conviction of the appellant by the trial court for the offence under Section 8(c) which is punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is just and proper, having regard to the oral and documentary evidence available on record? - HELD THAT:- From the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is found that statements of all these witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code do not bear any date. Further, statement under Section 161(3) of the Code of PW-1, who is the star witness of the prosecution around whom the entire case of the prosecution revolves, has not at all been recorded. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code recorded by the Police during the course of investigation plays a major role during the course of trial. After lodgi....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 966 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - time limitation - grounds raised in the petition is that the alleged date of advancement of loan was barred by limitation - complaint averments disclose that the alleged loan transaction is more than four years and the same is barred by limitation - cheque was presented without an endorsement and it is not in dispute that it is a self-cheque - offence is made out under Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act constituting an offence or not. Whether this Court can quash the proceedings in coming to the conclusion that the issuance of self cheque in respect of the time barred debt? - HELD THAT:- The very contention of the petitioner is that it is a time barred transaction; the same has to be decided only after recording the evidence not at the preliminary stage of taking the cognizance. It is settled law that whether it is ti....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 963 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of accused - Rebuttal of presumption - Whether the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence before the court in the light of the sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence in cases arising out of 'Cheque Bounce" under Negotiable Instrument Act 1881? - HELD THAT:- Both the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the complainant coupled with the presumption arising under section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 clearly indicates that, the complainant has discharged the initial burden on him to show that, the accused has issued the cheque by for ₹ 52,000/- and the said cheque was issued for existence of legally enforceable recoverable debt and liability. The accused can rebut the presumption by two ways one by cross-examining the complainant and the other is by ....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 962 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption arising under Section 139 of the N.I.Act - burden to prove - legally recoverable debt or other liability - HELD THAT:- In perusing the oral evidence of PW.1 with reference to his written complaint and his evidence in examination-in-chief, it is evident that nowhere he has stated the date when he has given loan amount. Only for the first time in the cross-examination he states on 18.08.2009 he has given loan amount in cash and he himself went to the house of the accused and paid that amount which is not a natural course of conduct of a person in such situation. The two witnesses Mohd.Mukthar and Mohd.Rafi who were stated to be present at the time of giving loan amount, were not examined. Admittedly, the said amount was not withdrawn from any Bank or from his account. PW.1 states that the amount ....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 961 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 - the complainant-Bank issued demand notice on 30-07- 2007, the accused did not reply the aforesaid notice, nor repaid the amount - HELD THAT:- This complaint was filed as if the accused has borrowed the loan and in discharge of the said loan accused issued the Ex.P.1-cheque. Loan borrowed by the father of the accused had admittedly become time barred long back. Without mentioning the true and correct facts and suppressing the true facts this complaint was filed making a false allegation against the accused. Even the contents of the notice are false. Therefore no statutory presumption under N.I Act can be raised in favour of the complainant-Bank when a false contention is taken and true facts are suppressed before the Court. On perusal of the evide....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 960 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - allegation is that having issued the Cheque towards discharge of his debt due to him, the petitioner has issued stop payment instructions to the banker to defraud him - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- The respondent in his cross examination stated that apart from 3 acres of horticultural land and wet land, he owns 8 acres of dry land and he cultivates pineapple, ginger and groundnuts. The fact that of respondent owning the horticultural and agricultural lands and cultivation of the same was not disputed in his cross examination - Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, the contentions of the petitioner regarding the lending capacity of the respondent is untenable. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the finding of the Courts below about lending capacity of the res....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 916 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - honourable acquittal - full exoneration - conviction of the respondent u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - claim for backwages - HELD THAT:- It has been averred in the complaint before the Labour Court that during the period of his conviction and acquittal, the respondent was not gainfully employed. The fact of acquittal of the respondent by this Court, was made aware to the petitioner, in March, 2011 itself, which is indicated from the application for amendment filed before the Labour Court (Annexure-B/pg.13), pursuant to which the petitioner, ought to have reinstated the respondent in service, in March, 2011 itself, since the reason for his termination, did not survive and could have availed the benefit of the services of the respondent till the time of his superannuation. The petitioner, for reasons, best k....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 813 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Smuggling - Charas - contraband item - offences under section 20/25 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, GD entry No. 0011A was recorded on the basis of the secret information received. So, at the stage of bail factual matrix of the case cannot be looked into and the same would be seen during the course of trial. The petitioner was arrested alongwith his co-accused, who is involved in two other cases of NDPS Act and no doubt he was carrying only 555 Gms. of Charas, which according to the counsel for the petitioner is less than the commercial quantity but his co-accused was carrying 955 grams of conrtraband, so at this stage, it would not be proper to consider the alleged recovery to be an individual recovery as both of them were travelling in the same vehicle. Co-accused is a habitual offender....... + More
- 2021 (2) TMI 811 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - compounding of offences - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is reported to be in custody, having surrendered on 12.02.2021, consequent upon the dismissal of his appeal. Now that the offence is compounded and the impugned judgments and orders are set aside, the petitioner Ratnakant Krishna Gaude will have to be released forthwith. Revision application disposed off.
- 2021 (2) TMI 798 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - burden of proof on complainant to establish his case - rebuttal of presumption - fulfilment of requirements under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- No doubt the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. It is for accused to rebut the presumption cast in favour of complainant to prove to the contrary that there never existed any legally recoverable debt or liability. This rebuttal of presumption has to be made by accused not by merely putting vague suggestions and denials in cross-examination. Accused will have to do something more than just mere denials either by producing cogent material evidence or by eliciting in cross-examination of PW.1 with regard to loan amount having been repaid or non-existence of any legally recoverable debt. It is only when such rebuttal is made, with cogent materi....... + More
........
|
