|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 5961 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 (7) TMI 382 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Request for detention in Kerala instead of Mumbai - case of petitioners is that they are resident of Kerala - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the prima facie view that pending adjudication of this petition, the petitioner should immediately surrender before Director General of Police, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and if the petitioners do not succeed in this petition, they shall be shifted to Mumbai - The petitioners are directed to surrender before Director General of Police, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram on 18th June, 2020 at 02:30. List for continuation of the arguments on 24th July, 2020.
- 2020 (7) TMI 354 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Drug Trafficking - Heroin - Contraband Item - illegality while drawing samples from the seized substance - whether the procedure specified under the Standing Orders can be flouted? - HELD THAT:- A combined reading of paras of the Standing Orders would show that where more than one container/package is found, the respondent is required to draw a sample from each of the individual container/package and test each of the sample with the ‘field testing kit’. It is further provided that if the container/packages are identical in shape, size and weight then lots of 10 or 40 containers/packages may be prepared and thereafter representative samples from each container/package in a particular lot are to be drawn, mixed and sent for testing - Mixing of the contents of container/package (in one lot) and then drawing the repres....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Smuggling - white powdery substance - prosecution’s case rests almost entirely on the alleged voluntary statements of the appellants (accused) recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the statements of Sagar Iyer Subramanium (PW8) and Mushahid Ali (PW18) - HELD THAT:- The Trial Court erred in not examining the material placed on record and accepted the prosecution’s case even though there is sufficient material to doubt the case set up by the prosecution. The Trial Court had completely ignored that the parcel seized by NCB weighed 2.4 kgs and the parcel allegedly received by Nitesh Patel weighed 36 kgs and this belied the prosecution’s case that the parcel dispatched by Sagar Iyer was the same that was received by Nitesh Patel from Chennai - There is a doubt whether the sample of the substance seized is the same as....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 262 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Grant of Moratorium due to COVID-19 pandemic situation - Restraint on respondent from recovering loan repayment instalments/EMI due - RBI Circular dated 27.03.2020 - grievance of the Petitioner relates to compliance/non- compliance by Respondent 5 to 7 of the RBI Circular. Whether a Writ of mandamus can be issued against a private bank to implement the Circular issued by the RBI dated 27.03.2020? - HELD THAT:- The obligation and duty of the RBI to regulate the financial institutions, its business as also the credit system of the country, by exercising the powers vested with it under the Act - Subsequent to the invocation of the DMA apprehending the adverse impact thereof on the economy of the country, the RBI with alacrity had issued the Circular dated 27.03.2020, in order to discharge its above obligation and duty. The aim, object and in....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 261 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - section 138 of NI Act - case of petitioner is that the cognizance as taken by the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 is beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed by Section 142(b) of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- The limitation in terms of Section 142 of the NI Act for instituting the complaint had expired on 10.12.2018. The complaint has been filed on 21.12.2018 without seeking leave of the court for extension of time for instituting the complaint as provided below Section 142(1)(b) which provides that such complaint has to be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act. In the case in hand, the cause arose on 11.11.2018 when 15 days from the date of receiving the notice demanding payment of the cheque amount had expired. Thus, the c....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 165 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - allegation that the condition precedent for filing of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was itself not satisfied - HELD THAT:- The learned appellate court erred in law in ignoring the mandatory time frame prescribed under section 138 of aforesaid Act of 1881 and held that the complaint case filed after 10 days of issuance of notice of bouncing of cheque was not fatal to the case on the ground that the purpose for issuance of notice has been fulfilled as the accused Anil Chandra had got knowledge about the dishonour of the cheque much before the filing of the complainant case and had not made payment of the cheque and that the accused had the opportunity to make payment in Court within fifteen days of receiving of Court's notice, if he was honest towards his cheque. This court finds....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 164 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Vacation of the order of cognizance of offence on behalf of the accused / defendant - It is the case of the complainant (defendant / acccused) that he made inquiry and then he could come to know that with a dishonest intention, the cheques were presented before the Bank, thus the complainant felt cheated - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted case that after receipt of the notice under Section 138 N.I. Act and after a proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act, which had been filed against the complainant, the complainant chose to file this complaint, which is the subject matter of this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNIL KUMAR VERSUS ESCORTS YAMAHA MOTORS LTD. AND ORS., [1999 (10) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], on amongst other, has held that a complaint and FIR after filing a complaint case under Section 138 N.I....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 51 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bail Application - commercial quantity of contraband - overcrowding in jails - corona positive cases present - HELD THAT:- No ground is made out for entertaining these (interim) bail applications. Bail application dismissed.
- 2020 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Wilful Defaulters or not - petitioners contend that the Show Cause Notice was issued by an Assistant General Manager of the Bank, who did not qualify even for being a member of the WDIC - Oppression and Mismanagement - siphoning of funds - HELD THAT:- The writ petitioners in the instant case had avoided submitting their reply to the show cause notice of the bank, despite getting several opportunities, even within the extended time afforded by the bank. In spite of the delay, although the bank was under no obligation to do so, it dealt with the salient objections raised by the petitioners in their reply, in the impugned order declaring the petitioners to be wilful defaulters. Sufficient reasons were provided for the decision, the factual and legal merits of which are for the review committee, and not this court, under Article 226 of the Co....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 680 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of Fundamental Rights - delay of 43 days by the Detaining Authority in deciding the representation of the petitioner - petitioner is in custody since 11th October, 2019 - detenues challenged the Detention Order on the ground that the Detaining Authority ought to have considered the representation without waiting for the report of the Central Advisory Board and delay in consideration of the representation violated the rights of the detenues guaranteed by the Constitution - COFEPOSA Act. HELD THAT:- There is no valid explanation for non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation from 06th November, 2019 to 18th December, 2019. There is no merit in the respondents’ explanation that they were waiting for the report of the Central Advisory Board - The delay on the part of the Detaining Authority to consider the peti....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 679 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while making observations in respect of enhancement of the compensation, forgot to see that there was no order of compensation at all by the learned Magistrate which could be enhanced. The enhancement presupposes awarding of some amount as compensation. In fact, there ought to have been, in such circumstance, a discussion as to whether awarding of compensation is necessary or not, as compensation can be awarded under Section 357(1) or 357(3) of Cr.P.C. If the compensation is to be should be from the fine amount and if it is to be in view of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., then fine should not be part of sentence. Further, the entire provision of Section 357 ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 589 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Framing of Charges - Vicarious Liability against the company or not - HELD THAT:- Section 141 of N.I. Act deals with the offences committed by the companies and say that if an offence is committed by a company under Section 138 of the Act, every person, at the time, the offence was committed, was in-charge and responsible to the company in the conduct of the business of the company, is liable along with the company to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Further, it is provided that no person shall liable to be punished if he proved that an offence was not committed under his knowledge or he has exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. In the case of ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS (P.) LTD. [2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] it has been held that when the compan....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 545 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - dispute is with regard to the actual amount borrowed and the period during which it was borrowed - legally enforceable debt or not - HELD THAT:- The trial court and also the appellate court has appreciated the facts and circumstances in a correct perspective and there is no illegality or irregularity in the finding of guilt under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. Sentence - HELD THAT:- The sentence passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam is to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation for ₹ 1,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months - the sentence passed is modified to fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Fine amount, if realized, shall be paid to PW1 complainant as compensation under Sec.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Revision allowed in part.
- 2020 (6) TMI 452 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Arbitration agreement - Applicability on the party who is not the signatory of the agreement - Scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Securing of money received from the sale proceeds of the auction of the hotel in Goa - Bidding Process - whether the relief claimed by the Petitioner for directing Respondent No. 2 to deposit the amount of ₹ 85 crores along with accrued interest, lying in the banks in the form of FDRs, in the custody of Respondent No.2, in this Court and a further direction not to disburse the same to Respondent No.1, can be granted? HELD THAT:- the scope of power of a Court under Section 9 of the Act is not limited to parties to an Arbitration Agreement and the Court can issue interim directions even against a third party. The distinction between the powers under Section 9 of the Act and S....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 359 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of the NI Act - trial of summon case - seeking that complainants be directed to produce documents and accounts - HELD THAT:- From the provisions contained in Sections 251 to 259 of the Code, it is quite clear that in a summons case what the Court does on the appearance of the accused is to state the particulars of the offence, and to ask him whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. If the accused does not plead guilty the Court will proceed to record the evidence on the side of the prosecution, hear the accused and take the evidence that the defence may produce. The Court will then either hold the accused not guilty or convict him. Section 255(3) of the Code empowers the Court to convict the accused of any offence which from the facts admitted or proved he appears to have committed, if the Magi....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 273 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grant of mandatory injunction - Raising finances to meet the requirement of deposit of ₹4 crores in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by creating an appropriate security in respect of such number of unsold units - raising of funds by way of issuance of non-convertible debentures (NCD’s) on a private placement basis in two tranches - HELD THAT:- Applicants in the present application are defendant No.1 and 3 in the suit who are acting in representative capacity of defendant No.4. As noted above, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of ₹448,75,58,347/- from defendant Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally and for permanent and mandatory injunction. The dispute between the parties is investment of the plaintiff No.2 in defendant No.4 of which defendant No.3 is 99% sharehol....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Custodian appointed under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act 1992 - diversion of large amounts from banks and financial institutions - Whether respondent no.1 proves that the claim in this petition is barred by law of limitation? - HELD THAT:- No submissions have been made on behalf of respondent no.1 on this aspect. Although Mr.Mehta did support the Respondent no.1’s plea of the claim being barred, the issues have not been recast but considering the defence in Respondent no.4’s written statement, although the claim against Respondent no.4 may appear to be barred, the issue as framed will have to be answered in the negative. Save and except for the 4th Respondents contention in the written statement no submissions with reference to facts have been made on this aspect on behalf of R....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking Donations for the trust illegally - offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - acquittal of the accused - rebuttal of presumption - contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/state is that the trial Court failed to consider the oral evidence and also the documentary evidence let-in by the prosecution to substantiate the case - HELD THAT:- The respondent, is not connected with UPUS trust. Only for the reason that the Managing trustees was residing in village, the respondent’s father who is Auditor of the CCCB Limited (Bank) was authorized to operate the trust account to facilitate the transaction. The amounts which have been properly accounted for the functioning of the trust is not in dispute. The house of the respondent was searched and no incri....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 178 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner while serving as a Commercial Tax Officer has failed to verify the effect of corresponding taxable sales / transit sales of the dealers Tvl Uco Agency, merely because under Charge No.3, there was no loss for the Government, it is paramount duty of the petitioner, while he was serving as a Commercial Tax Officer, who ought to have verified by holding detailed enquiry about the turnover of a particular company, but the act of the petitioner who failed to verify such effects and corresponding sales / transit sales was only to aid and help the particular agency which is not warranted from the petitioner, who was working as a Commercial Tax Officer.' Our Country is run only by the tax paid by the assesses made by the individual or from the companies. T....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 139 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - Smuggling - whether prayer for grant of bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. can be considered after the learned Trial Judge takes cognizance of offences alleged in the complaint filed under Section 36A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985? - HELD THAT:- It is settled that once a challan is filed, an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail does not survive for consideration or remain enforceable. Though Mr.Hashmath Pasha, strenuously contended that NCB’s complaint having been filed without completing investigation, is a defective one, it cannot be gainsaid that the learned Special Judge has already taken cognizance of the offence and trial is in progress. There is no challenge to the validity of compliant nor the order of taking cognizance. Mr.Hashmath Pasha has relied only on....... + More
........
|
