|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 953 Records
-
2021 (12) TMI 127 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Professional misconduct of Chartered Accountant - High Court of Karnataka appointed Respondent No.3/Chartered Accountant for verification of the books and other documents of the three Transferor Companies and to submit his report - scheme of merger sanctioned based on the report - HELD THAT:- The report was thus a part of the judicial proceedings before the said Court and it was duly considered and deliberated upon by the Karnataka High Court. The Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation vide judgment dated 26.03.2015 and it is apparent that the Court found no fault with or falsity in the report.
Once the report passed the threshold of judicial scrutiny, there was no reason why the Disciplinary Committee of ICAI should have adjudicated the correctness or otherwise of the Report. In fact, the Disciplinary Committee rightly refrained from interfering in the report by observing that it had no jurisdiction to even delve into the report, once it had received approval from the Karnataka High Court. Hence, no error was committed by ICAI in dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant - It needs to be highlighted that the order of the Karnataka High Court sanctioning the Amalgamation Scheme was sought to be recalled by India Awake for Transparency, however, the recall application, being in the nature of a review petition, was dismissed.
The Appellant has repeatedly defaulted in complying with the orders of various Courts by not depositing the costs imposed - no error has been committed by learned Single Judge while deciding the petition and we are in complete agreement with the observations, reasoning and findings rendered in the impugned judgment.
There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed along with all pending applications with costs of ₹ 50,000/- to be deposited by the Appellant with the Delhi State Legal Service Authority within eight weeks from today. The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for the programme ‘Access to Justice’.
The Appeal shall be listed on 07.01.2022, only for the limited purpose of reporting compliance with respect to deposit of costs.
-
2021 (12) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - rejection of prayer for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - power of Appellate Court to order payment pending appeal against conviction - Whether in the facts and circumstances, is it a fit case for making an exception for waiver of minimum pre-deposit of 20% of compensation awarded by the trial Court? - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that general rule under Section 148 of the Act is of pre-deposit and waiver is only an exception for which special reasons need to be assigned - It would not be appropriate to pre-judge the appeal at the stage of deciding the waiver of pre-deposit. The petitioners have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Applications annexing their bank account statements and their concerns to support the contention that they are not financialy capable to make the pre-deposit.
The trial Court considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced convicted petitioners under Section 138 of the Act. The difference in the amount of cheque and the figure mentioned by the petitioners was duly explained by the complainant. The defence raised that it is a case of misuse of cheque for security, was met by the complainant by producing documents.
The contention raised on behalf of Sarabjeet Singh Wadhawan that he is neither a partner nor signatory to the cheque, does not enhance the case for waiver of pre-deposit. He stated that he was looking after the day-to-day affairs of firm. In cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on balance confirmation. The resignation of Simarpal Singh Wadhawan was found to be self-serving document. He deposed that after his resignation, Manjit Kaur and Sarabjeet Singh Wadhawan were partners whereas earlier Manjit Kaur and Simarpal Singh Wadhawan were partners - contention that conditions under Section 141 of the Act are not satisfied qua Simarpal Singh Wadhawan and Sarabjeet Singh Wadhawan was dealt with by the trial Court and would be subject matter of the appeal. It is not the stage to re-appreciate the evidence and to deal in detail with fulfilment of pre-requisites of Section 141 of the Act.
SMS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS NEETA BHALLA [2005 (9) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT] is the case dealing with the liability of the Director of the company. It was held that mere holding designation is not enough. As per Section 141, the person should be incharge and responsible for conducting the business. In the present case, the trial Court has relied upon the evidence adduced which indicates participation of Simarpal Singh Wadhawan and Sarabjeet Singh Wadhawan in day-to-day working of the business.
No case is made out for waiver of pre-deposit, criminal revision petitions are dismissed. However, time granted for making the pre-deposit is extended by thirty days.
-
2021 (12) TMI 66 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - existence of legally enforceable liability upon the petitioner or not - cheque in question had been issued in discharge of any legal liability or not - drawing of presumption or not - Section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- Though the complainant during her cross-examination has not been able to state anything regarding the income of her husband and has even feigned ignorance about the Income Tax Returns, but the complainant, who is a widow, may not be knowing about the financial details of her husband and may not be having access to income tax record maintained by her late husband. In any case, even if it is presumed that the amount advanced by the complainant's husband to the petitioner was not shown in the Income Tax Return, the same itself would not wash off the liability of the loanee (petitioner) to repay the loan amount when there is nothing to doubt the factum of issuance of cheque and the story put forth by complainant regarding loan having been advanced by her late husband.
The facts of the present case do make out for drawing a presumption as regards the existence of a legal liability in terms of Section 139 of the Act particularly when there is nothing on record to rebut the same.
There is a mandate of presumption of existence of liability and upon proof of issuance of cheque the onus shifts to the accused/petitioner to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act. In the instant case, the petitioner has only recorded his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration - Once the facts on record remained unrebutted with no substantive evidence of defence of the petitioner to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the complaint against him, no error can be said to have been committed by the Courts below.
There is certainly no evidence to show that the body writing on the cheque in question is in a different hand or ink and has been made by a person other than the person, who had signed on the cheque. But, that as it may, even if there is any such difference in hand-writing, the same would be immaterial once the signatures on the cheque in question are not disputed - Hon'ble the Supreme Court in BIR SINGH VERSUS MUKESH KUMAR [2019 (2) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT], has held that if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and the other particulars and that such difference in hand-writing ipso-facto would not invalidate the cheque or render its authenticity doubtful.
This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court and as upheld by the lower Appellate Court and the same, thus, do not warrant any interference - Revision petition dismissed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 65 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - petitioners were declared as proclaimed persons, without due service having been effected - even a clear period of 30 days was not given from the date of affixation - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From a comparison of the address of the petitioners mentioned in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 (Annexure P-1) and the address of the petitioners which has been mentioned in the memo of parties in the present petition, it is clear that the address of the petitioners as has been mentioned in the complaint is not correct. A perusal of the zimni orders which have been annexed with the present petition would also show that the petitioners were never served. The proclamation dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure P-5) would show that the date fixed in the same was 30.04.2018 whereas, as per the statement of Makhan Singh, PHG dated 30.04.2018 (Annexure P-6), affixation had been done on 23.04.2018 and thus, clear period of 30 days has not been given to the petitioners for appearance.
It is, thus, apparent that the proceedings declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons are bad on the said account alone and thus, the registration of the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC is illegal. It is further clear that the petitioners had joined the proceedings in the complaint case under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 and had been granted the benefit of bail as is apparent from order dated 09.07.2021.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (12) TMI 64 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Withdrawal of the captioned writ petition - pendency of the proceedings persuaded by the petitioners - HELD THAT:- The order challenged on the ground that after hearing all the parties the matters were reserved for judgment vide order dated 19.01.2021 and thereafter the matters were not notified in the cause list published by the Tribunal for pronouncement. It is only when the petitioners received the email from Resolution Professional intimating the uploading of the order dated 01.03.2021, the petitioners came to know about the order. According to the petitioners, in absence of the listing of the matters for pronouncement of judgment, the pronouncement cannot be construed to be pronouncement in the realm of law.
Clearly, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal only for the limited purpose of requesting for stay of the order pronounced for the interregnum period and to prefer an appeal by the aggrieved party. Accordingly, the Tribunal has listed the application and passed an order dated 29.10.2021 whereby, the request of the stay of order was acceded to and the order dated 01.03.2021, was kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks in order to enable the concerned parties to prefer appeal.
The present writ petitions are nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioners to abuse the process of Court, relitigating the same subject matter - the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2021 (12) TMI 40 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - delayed supply of products specified in the purchase order - territorial Jurisdiction - whether the Commercial Court in Bengaluru has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the premise that the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and the Courts in Delhi alone have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit? - HELD THAT:- The cheque was issued by the defendant company towards purchase of materials from the plaintiff. Now, the question that needs to be answered is "whether all the materials were supplied to the defendant or not?" The answer to this question is found in Ex.P9(a) i.e., the email sent by the defendant wherein the defendant has admitted that the issue relating to the software is resolved - From the above said communications, there is no difficulty to hold that hardware and software were delivered in time. The defendant had requested the plaintiff to hold the cheque for few more days. In the next email, the defendant has requested not to present the cheque on the premise there is delay in delivery of complete licenses. It is also relevant to note that the contract for supply of materials between the plaintiff and the defendant is at Ex.P3. This document does not stipulate any time limit for the plaintiff to supply the goods.
The plaintiff has established supply of the products to be within time. The defendant has failed to establish short/delayed supply of materials. Thus, the defendant cannot evade the liability.
Though the defendant has taken a stand that the cheque is issued as a security towards the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, since the plaintiff is able to establish supply of materials specified in the purchase order and the defendant having failed to establish alleged short supply/delayed supply, assuming that the cheque was issued towards security, then also the said cheque would attract presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Based on the admission of DW1, the Court has come to the conclusion that the cause of action has also arisen in Bengaluru. Moreover, the contention relating to the territorial jurisdiction is not a contention which goes into the root of the matter. The defendant had appeared and participated in the trial and led evidence. No prejudice is caused to the defendant by the act of the Commercial Court in entertaining and deciding the suit. Thus, this contention of the appellant again has no merit.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1193 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Grant of anticipatory bail - accepting bribe and creating forged documents - HELD THAT:- Perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, the anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant.
The applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1188 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking quashing G.O. Ms. No. 50 which granted loan waiver to small and marginal farmers - exercise of powers of judicial review - scheme granting exemption only to 'small farmers' and 'marginal farmers' is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution - scheme is under-inclusive and over-inclusive - High Court held the grant of loan waivers only to small and marginal farmers to be arbitrary and directed the Appellant to grant the same benefit to all farmers irrespective of the extent of landholding - HELD THAT:- The application of the impugned scheme to only the small and the marginal farmers is justified for two reasons: (i) A climate crisis such as drought and flood causes large scale damages to small holdings as compared to the large holdings due to the absence of capital and technology; and (ii) The small and marginal farmers belong to the economically weaker Section of society. Therefore, the loan waiver scheme in effect targets the economically weaker Section of the rural population. The scheme is introduced with an endeavor to bring substantive equality in society by using affirmative action to uplift the socially and economically weaker sections. Due to the distinct degree of harm suffered by the small and marginal farmers as compared to other farmers, it is justifiable that the benefit of the scheme is only provided to a specified class as small and marginal farmers constitute a class in themselves. Therefore, the classification based on the extent of landholding is not arbitrary since owing to the inherent disadvantaged status of the small and marginal farmers, the impact of climate change or other external forces is unequal.
The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed that the scheme is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive since the total extent of land held by a person is calculated based on the information in the landholding register which permits discrepancies. It also held the scheme to be under-inclusive for not extending the benefit to 'other farmers' or the 'large farmers'. The meaning and ambit of under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness has been discussed in an erudite exposition by Justice K.K. Mathew, writing for a Constitution Bench in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills [1974 (3) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Since the classification does not include all who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law, the classification might appear, at first blush, to be unreasonable. But the Court has recognised the very real difficulties under which legislatures operate -- difficulties arising out of both the nature of the legislative process and of the society which legislation attempts perennially to re-shape -- and it has refused to strike down indiscriminately all legislation embodying classificatory inequality here under consideration.
While non-classification arbitrariness is tested based on the proportionality test, where the means are required to be proportional to the object, classification arbitrariness is tested on the rational nexus test, where it is sufficient if the means share a 'nexus' with the object. The degree of proof under the test would impact the judgment of this Court on whether the law is under-inclusive or over-inclusive. A statute is 'under-inclusive' if it fails to regulate all actors who are part of the problem. It is 'over-inclusive' if it regulates actors who are not a part of the problem that the statute seeks to address. The determination of under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness, and degree of deference to it is dependent on the relationship prong ('rational nexus' or 'proportional') of the test.
The Scheme in issue was introduced in pursuance of an electoral promise made by the then party in power in Tamil Nadu. The High Court seems to have been of the view that because the scheme was in pursuance of an electoral promise, it is constitutionally suspect. This view was made on an assumption that no study must have been conducted before the electoral promise was made. It is settled law that a scheme cannot be held to be constitutionally suspect merely because it was based on an electoral promise - The scheme propounded by the State of Tamil Nadu passes muster against the constitutional challenge. The High Court has erred in holding otherwise. During the pendency of the proceedings the State has granted a broader coverage, based on its assessment of the situation.
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench dated 4 April 2017 is set aside.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of suspension order - even after passage of more than 4 years, the departmental proceedings are not completed - It is submitted that even as per the policy of the State Government, the departmental proceeding is required to be completed within a period of six months - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was issued the charge-sheet on 20.02.2018 and he has been facing the suspension since more than 4 years. It is surprising to note that the Presenting Officer is appointed on 10.06.2021 after a period of more than 4 years from his suspension. Thus, the State authority is directed to complete the departmental proceedings latest by 31.03.2022. It is directed that, if the departmental proceedings are not over or completed, and no final order is passed before 31.03.2022, the suspension of the petitioner shall stand revoked.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1183 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Application for vacating stay filed by respondent No. 5 herein granted - respondent are allowed to finalize the project of putting up a freight terminal at the risk and cost of respondent No. 5 - opportunity to file counter affidavit not allowed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the writ appellant could not have an opportunity to file counter-affidavit to the application for vacating stay filed by private respondent No. 5 which was his valuable right to file counter-affidavit of that application opposing it and to defend the interim order granted after hearing the parties by which he has suffered prejudice, and further taking note of the fact that the writ appellant had promptly served copy of rejoinder to the respondents on 28-9-2021 and findings as noticed above have been recorded on the merits of the matter which has vital bearing on the final adjudication of writ petition as respondents No. 1 to 4 have been allowed to finalise the project of putting up a freight terminal though at the risk and cost of respondent No. 5 and subject to final adjudication of the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned dated 28-9-2021 cannot be termed as a pure and simple interlocutory order within the meaning of proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 and as such, the writ appeal cannot be held to be barred in terms of paragraph 45 of the judgment of this Court in AJAY GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS [2017 (1) TMI 1827 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] and consequently, the writ appeal is held to be maintainable and the preliminary objection raised in this behalf qua the maintainability of appeal, is hereby repelled.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1181 - SUPREME COURT
Empanelment and appointment of Respondent No. 4 as DGP (HoPF) - Whether preparation of the panel for selection of DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab was in contravention of a judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India [2006 (9) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT]? - HELD THAT:- In exercise of its power Under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court directed UPSC to constitute an empanelment committee to recommend three senior-most officers with good record of service and range of experience, and meeting other parameters, from whom the DGP shall be selected and appointed by the State Government. The incumbent DGP of the State is a member of the empanelment committee according to the Draft Guidelines issued by the UPSC. These Guidelines issued in compliance with the directions given by this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we would accept, are well-known and in public domain. Therefore, the position that Respondent No. 5, being the DGP, would be a member of the Empanelment Committee was within the knowledge of the Appellant. Ignorance of this factum when pretended must be rejected as a mere pretence.
The Article states that as per the information gathered from officials privy to the development, the UPSC meeting will be held in Delhi and would be attended by the Punjab Chief Secretary Mr. Karan Avtar Singh and the incumbent DGP Mr. Suresh Arora, i.e., Respondent No. 5. In the given facts and considering the position and status of the Appellant, we would not accept the plea that participation of Respondent No. 5 in the Empanelment Committee was unknown or a secret for the Appellants.
Whether the Appellants are estopped from challenging the recommendations made by the Empanelment Committee, given the fact that they had taken a calculated chance, and not protested till the selection panel was made public? - HELD THAT:- The judgment in Madanlal [1995 (2) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT] refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. [1986 (3) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Petitioner who had appeared at an examination without protest was not granted any relief, as he had filed the petition when he could not succeed afterwards in the examination. This principle has been reiterated in Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and Ors. [2010 (5) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURT] and Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi and Ors. [2013 (4) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT].
The Court in P.D. Dinakaran [2011 (7) TMI 1358 - SUPREME COURT] had requested the Chairman to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of the person in question, duly noticing that the proceedings initiated had progressed only to the stage of framing of charges and nomination of another jurist would not hamper the proceedings. The reconstituted committee would be entitled to proceed on the charges already framed.
The High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal and upholding the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 4 as DGP (HoPF), State of Punjab - appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1180 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of SLP - the impugned issue was whether the instant case can be termed as an appropriate case and the further proceedings against the petitioner to be an abuse of process of court, warranting interference under Section 482, despite the bar under Section 397(3) - it was held by High Court that The substantial contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel having been answered as above, there is no special circumstance in this case which compels this Court to entertain a second revision and grant relief, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- It is not required to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution - SLP dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1174 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Clause-25A of the contract (Annexure P-1) having been executed between the parties provides for the same - invocation of bank guarantee - time limitation - HELD THAT:- In TRF Limited [2017 (7) TMI 1288 - SUPREME COURT] the dispute was qua purchase order inter se the parties and the encashment of the bank guarantee. The High Court had upheld the appointment of the sole arbitrator which had been done by the Managing Director, who was a Former Judge of the Supreme Court. The challenge as such that the Managing Director could not nominate had been rejected. While referring to the provisions of Section 12, 6th Schedule and 7th Schedule and referring to various judgments, the Apex Court reversed the order of the High Court.
In 'Bharat Broadband Network Limited Vs. United Telecoms Limited', [2019 (4) TMI 983 - SUPREME COURT] , dispute had arisen with the appellant, who had nominated the sole arbitrator. Keeping in view the judgment passed in TRF Limited, the appellant itself challenged the appointment by filing an application before the arbitration for withdrawal, which was rejected. The petition filed before the High Court of Delhi was rejected on the ground that the person who had appointed the arbitrator was estopped from raising the plea. The matter was taken to the Apex Court, which had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that arbitrator was unable to perform his function as an arbitrator and left it open for the High Court to appoint a substitute arbitrator with the consent of both the parties.
Thus, it would be clear that the jurisdiction as such with the respondent-Nigam to appoint an nominated arbitrator has been taken away, in view of the said judgments and, therefore, the petitioner is well justified to approach this Court for the said purpose.
Whether the claim would be held to be barred by limitation and whether the clause providing for pre-deposit is liable to be sustained or not? - HELD THAT:- It is to be noticed that in the present case the rejection to appoint an arbitrator was only on 08.04.2019 (Annexure P-7) on the ground of limitation and the present petition was filed on 24.04.2019 and therefore, there is no such inordinate delay and the objection raised by the respondent is without any basis.
The issue of pre-deposit was subject matter of consideration before two Division Benches. Firstly in the case of 'National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. State of Haryana and another' [ [2007 (1) TMI 649 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] , challenge had been raised to the clause of deposit of the 10% of the amount claimed as per Clause 25(viii) of the contract before arbitration proceedings could be invoked. The same was rejected on the ground that it was a laudable object that no one can file frivolous claims before the arbitrator and there is no irrationality in imposing the said condition. Even otherwise the clause was found not unreasonable or unconscionable and there being no unequal bargaining power of the party to the contract.
Even otherwise it is settled principle that this Court is bound by the view of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court which is S.K. Jain's case [2009 (2) TMI 926 - SUPREME COURT] which is a Three Judges Bench and, therefore, the claim as such for striking down of 3% deposit clause would not arise - the Arbitration Board had not been constituted by the Corporation and neither the arbitrator could be appointed by the High Court. Resultantly, it was directed that the Corporation shall constitute an Arbitration Board on furnishing of the security of the sum to be determined by the Corporation and the Arbitration Board would proceed from the stage the earlier arbitrator was appointed by the High Court. It was held that the arbitrator could not be appointed inconsistently with the arbitration agreement. Resultantly, the interest of the respondent-Nigam can be protected to the extent that the arbitrator shall only enter into reference provided the requisite security is furnished to the tune of 3% of the amount claimed.
The Chief Justice A.K. Mittal (retd.) is appointed as an Arbitrator - The learned Arbitrator is requested to enter into reference only on furnishing of proof of the 3% deposit in terms of the condition imposed by the respondent-Nigam - application allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1172 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - applicant seeks time to approach the competent Court in the event of any FIR being registered against him.
HELD THAT:- There is observation of the trial Court that the application is not filed in respect of any specific crime or even in respect of any specific complaint. The application is filed only on the ground of apprehension that new complaint at the instance of Mr. Rajesh Jadhawar may be registered against the applicant. The learned trial Court was not inclined to entertain the application and accordingly rejected the same.
In the event the respondent finds it necessary to arrest the applicant in connection with any complaint pertaining to cognizable offence at the behest of Mr. Rajesh Jadhawar, Joint Registrar (Audit) with respect to specific report, audit report and special report dated 6th August, 2021 submitted by him to the office of Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune, the applicant be given 72 hours advance notice - application disposed off.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1170 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking to restrain Defendant No.2 from acting upon and enforcing the anti-suit injunction order passed by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the Interim Application taken out by the Plaintiff herein is required to be heard and particularly considering that the Interim Application seeks to restrain the Defendant No.2 from acting upon and enforcing the anti-suit injunction order which is now permanent anti-suit injunction, by the judgment dated 26th October, 2021, it would be appropriate to direct the Defendants to adjourn the meeting post the Interim Application being heard and decided.
The Interim Applications shall be placed along with the Interim Application No.1010 of 2021 on 8th December, 2021 at 2.30 p.m.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1166 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- The writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate investigation.
It is well settled that the High Court should normally refrain from giving prima facie decision, in case, where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court. The issues involved whether factual or legal are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. In the present matter, we lack sufficient material. Therefore, the disputed facts cannot be examined under Article 226 of Constitution of India and once efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner against the notice impugned, then discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India not exercised.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1143 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appointment of Anganwadi karyakarta/Sahayaka - in the scheme dated 10.7.2007 in clause v&2 ¼v½ 2 it is provided that 10 marks have been prescribed for a woman of a family below poverty line - HELD THAT:- When tested on this legal proposition then there is no iota of doubt that when petitioner herself admits that father-in-law and husband of the private respondent are part of the BPL card holders prior to the date of the advertisement then by inclusion private respondent on account of her marriage to a member of BPL family will become a BPL card holder and, therefore, the Collector and Commissioner have not erred in passing the impugned order calling for any interference.
Therefore there is no error in the impugned order calling for any interference - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - criminal conspiracy - murder of Sheena Bora after her abduction - HELD THAT:- Applicant is charged with an act of criminal conspiracy, causing disappearance of evidence, furnishing false information in respect of the offence, committing murder of her own daughter after kidnapping with an intention to murder and forgery. Deceased Sheena was in love with Rahul, who is a star witness in the present case. Rahul, is the son of the first wife of accused No. 4 Peter. Initially, applicant was in live-in relationship with Siddharth Das from whom son Mekhail and daughter Sheena was born. Applicant performed her marriage with Sanjeev Khanna on 29/03/1993 and daughter Vidhi was born out of the said wedlock.
It appears that the prosecution has taken enough precaution and provided best of the medical facilities to the applicant. In the wake of the observations made by the Trial Court in its order, there is hardly any convincing reason which warrants her release on medical grounds. Apart from above, this Court is in complete agreement with the reasons furnished by the Court below while rejecting the bail on merits. The material in the form of circumstantial evidence very much connects the direct involvement of the applicant in the crime.
The trial court while dealing with the claim of the applicant on merits vide order dated 05/08/2020 has in detail dealt with the claim put forth including that of medical condition - Reasons cited in the said order are germane to the cause for rejection of the bail.
No case for bail is made out - Application dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1139 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Tax to be paid by owner at industrial rate or commercial rate? - exigibility of the petitioner to pay property tax - industrial property - property owner has leased out the property - lessee is using the property as an industrial property - Refusal to register the lease deed/s executed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Originally the Corporation had assessed the petitioner on commercial rate, against which the petitioner had filed an appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Authority by passing a detailed order. However the impugned order which was passed on a revision filed by the respondent is extremely cryptic and the only reasons which have weighed with the Revisional authority seem to be the facts, that firstly in the opinion of the Revisional authority the Appellate authority had set aside the notification (which we find is not correct since only the notices were set aside by the appellate authority), and secondly that other similarly situated units are paying the property tax at commercial rate without any demur.
Counsel for the petitioner further pray that, as an interim measure, the respondents be directed to register the lease deeds executed by the petitioner with its intending lessees because as per it, it had already paid an amount more than 13 times what it is actually liable to pay and on the other hand it is the stand of the counsel for the respondents that in case any such interim relief is granted to the petitioner it would have a cascading effect and consequently they want that the matter should be heard on merits.
A better way of sorting out this dispute is that the order of the Revisional authority is set aside and the Revisional authority is directed to pass a fresh order dealing with all the contentions of both the parties in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to them - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1092 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - petitioner has been deprived of proper hearing by the respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order reveals that the District Magistrate has also made it a ground that the petitioner has not filed the orders of acquittal passed in his favour and has relied upon the cases enumerated by the S.P. in his recommendation and has come to a conclusion that since so many cases have been registered against the petitioner, which shows his involvement in the criminal cases even now. This Court also finds that before passing the impugned order, the District Magistrate has not recorded the statement of any person from the area, who could say that he is afraid to go to police station only on account of the terror or influence exercised by the petitioner.
It is apparent that by not providing the petitioner sufficient time to produce the orders of acquittal in the cases in which he was already acquitted, the principles of natural justice have been clearly violated and in such peculiar circumstances, even if the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. In the considered opinion of this court, had an opportunity to produce the copies of acquittal orders passed in favour of the petitioner been given to him by the District Magistrate, the result of the outcome could have been different.
Whether order of externment cannot be passed in respect of other adjoining district? - HELD THAT:- This court is not required to dwell upon the same as the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Petition allowed.
............
|
