Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws HC Indian Laws - HC 1991 1991 1991 (3) 1991 (3) HC Indian Laws - 1991 (3) Indian Laws - 1991 (3) TMI HC This
|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 4 of 4 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 and Decision etc.
-
1991 (3) TMI 402
... ... ... ... ..... 2. We have unable to approve the decision of the Learned Single Judge reported in (1988) 2 Cal HN 455 in which the learned Single Judge even though he found that only the sanction under Section 137(i) of the Customs Act was necessary he quashed the proceeding on the ground that the sanction was accorded for prosecution of the accused and that it was not a sanction for taking cognizance. In the result we are unable to hold that the sanction order issued by the Collector of Customs in this case under Section 137(1) Criminal Procedure Code Customs Act is in any way invalid. Therefore, the taking cognizance by the Learned Magistrate on the basis of such sanction order is not in our opinion invalid. 23. As none of the contentions raised by the petitioner is acceptable, we find no merit in this petition. The petition is rejected. Let the Lower Court record be sent down to the Learned Magistrate for disposal of this case as expeditiously as possible. Manabendra Nath Roy, J. I agree.
-
1991 (3) TMI 401
... ... ... ... ..... #39;s daughter" is a relative specified as an heir under sub category (4) of category IX in Schedule II of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners who are the daughters of the sister of the deceased are therefore his heirs. Therefore, they represent the estate of the deceased Velayudhan. 18. In view of what I have held in the foregoing paragraphs the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. 19. The nature of the interest of the deceased in the subject-matter of the suit has been referred to by me, for the limited purpose of determining whether the petitioners are the legal representatives and not for the purpose of deciding merits of the case in the appeal. 20. For all these reasons the revision petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order of the learned District Judge, Trichur in LA. No. 1956 of 1987 in A.S. No. 61/86 is set aside. The petitioners shall be brought on the record of the case as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
-
1991 (3) TMI 400
... ... ... ... ..... ection, (a) 'company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals ; and (b) 'director', in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." 11. We are of the view that the contention of the opposite party is correct. In the petition of complaint, the present petitioner being the director is being prosecuted under Section 141 of the Act along with the company. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Roy that a separate notice upon the petitioner-director is required to be given under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for prosecuting him along with the company for the offence alleged to have been committed by the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the result, we are unable to hold that there is any ground for this court to quash the proceeding even against the present petitioner. In the result, the revision petition fails. M.N. Roy, J. 12. I agree.
-
1991 (3) TMI 393
... ... ... ... ..... t is on the insurer. The reason is that upon proof by the claimants of the three facts set out above and in the absence of any evidence proving the fact that the vehicle was driven by an unlicenced driver, the claimants must succeed and the insurer must fail. 15. For all these reasons, we have no doubt that the burden of proving the fact which excludes the liability of the insurer to pay compensation lies on the insurer alone and no one else. In our opinion the insurer has failed to discharge this burden. 16. The claimants have filed cross objects to this appeal. The appellant, insurer, merely indemnifies the insured with whom he has contract of insurance. The claimants are not entitled to maintain cross objections in such an appeal by a party who is a mere indemnifier. In our opinion, the cross objections by the claimants are incompetent. For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The cross objection too is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
|
|