Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws HC Indian Laws - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Indian Laws - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 1969 Records

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Thenappan Versus K. Raguraman

    Attempt to probablize the suggestive case - dishonor of cheque - guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act - Held that - Even during the cross examination of P.W.1, though, an attempt has been made by the Revision petitioner/accused to touch upon the financial capacity of the P.W.1. However, such an attempt as become fertile in view of the positive evidence by the P.W.1 in the cross examination that from the saving of his earning he h....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 741 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Nzube Christian Asika Versus NCB

    Grant of Regular Bail under Sections 21 (c), 23(c) read with Section 50-A of the NDPS Act - Held that - From the perusal of the record it transpires that the petitioner was apprehended from the spot by the raiding team after he took the delivery of the alleged parcel which contained 185 grams of cocaine. At the time of the search, the respondents have complied with the provisions envisaged under the statue and served him notice under Section 50 o....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 485 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Vipin Kumar Versus State of Delhi & ARK fluid system components Pvt. Ltd.

    Additional documents after passing the summoning order - Held that - In the instant case the additional documents pertains to a reply filed by the respondent No.2/complainant in the revision petition along with other documents, reply and documents filed before this Court, the copy of annual balance sheets of the accused company for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 which were filed by the accused persons on 29.11.2014 and 29.12.2014, and the ....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 484 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    M/s Surya Satellite, M/s Star Vision Cable T.V. Network Versus State of U.P. And Others

    Requirement of pre-deposit under Section 12 (3) in U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 - Held that - Looking to the peculiar nature of the dispute and also the factum that petitioners appeal could not be entertained by appellate authority for want of compliance of Section 12 (3) and also considering interim order passed by this Court in the appeal, we provide, if petitioners have complied interim orders, appellate authority shall permit ....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 356 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Mrs. Rosali Versus M/s Syndicate Bank

    Suit filed for recovery of money with interest - Money withdrawn by messenger and relative used to transact with the Bank on plaintiff s behalf by forging signatures in the cheque slips - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount claimed? - whether the defendant Bank Officials had passed the cheques without due care and by gross negligence, which amounts to dereliction of duty and misconduct in the course of employment? - Held that - To se....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Tushar s/o Kishore Trivedi Versus Union of India & Others

    Challenges a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( COFEPOSA ) - Held that - The petitioner is a COFEPOSA detenu. He was throughout advised by the competent legal brains. He had the advantage of best legal assistance. He was briefing counsel and the senior counsel throughout. He could have pressed, at least in the second Writ Petition, all these grounds ....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 265 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Union of India & Ors. Versus Kamal Kumar & Raman Kumar

    Offence under SAFEMA - validity of detention orders - Held that - In this case, the entire basis of the notice appears to be a detention, the challenge to which was declined. Here, it is important to remember that the detenue s access to Article 226 of the Constitution of India was doubted; nine High Courts held that access existed. The Supreme Court, however overturned their rulings in ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla 1976 (4) TMI 211 - SUPREME C....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 162 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Shabnam Arora Versus Union of India & Others

    Challenging the detention order - offence under under Section 3 (1) of COFEPOSA Act - Held that - With the ground already having been considered and rejected by the Court which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, it is not possible for this Court to permit the Petitioner to again urge the same ground for questioning the same detention order. - As regards the representation made by the Petitioner on 6th September, 2017 not having been consider....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 161 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Shatrughan Pandey Versus Union of India Thru' Inspector Custom

    Offence under NDPS Act - Held that - The trial Court has imposed punishment of 13 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹ 2.00 lakhs and in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment of 3 years. There is nothing on record to show that accused has ever been convicted earlier for any crime. The prosecution version shows that he fell prey to avarice of earning money which he would get if he had successfully reached the recov....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 160 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Kiran Bhai Kapadiya s/o Narayan Bhai – Director & Partner., Rasik Bhai s/o Girdhar Bahi – Director., Praveen Bhai s/o Narayan Bhai – Director., Subhash Hada – Ex-Regional Manager of M/s. Karan Agri Genetics Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Rajasthan, Shri Ashok Kumar Kamediya s/o Late Shri Pema Ram Kamediya, b/c Kamediya (Jat) – Proprietor M/s. Hariyali Khad Beej Agency, Anaj Mandi, Bikaner and resident of C-116, Samtanagar, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

    Offence under Negotiable instruments Act - Reason available for the complainant to have escaped the liability - FIR was lodged by the complainant on 01.03.2016 as a counter-blast - Held that - It is apparent that the cheques were submitted in 2015 and as soon as the aforesaid legal notice dated 09.12.2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served upon the complainant on 15.12.2015 and a letter was sent by the complainant on 2....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 98 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    A. Ashvathaman Versus The Government of India, The Central Board of Film Certification, Sri Thenandal Films, Joseph Vijay Chandrasekar

    Revoke the censor certificate issued by the second respondent for the movie Mersal - petitioner submit that some of the scenes in the movie depicted wrong facts with reference to operation of G.S.T - as wrongly stated that G.S.T. is collected at 28 in India as against 7 in Singapore, but, no free medical aid is provided in India as being done in Singapore - also another factual assertion has been made that GST is not being charged on the liquor -....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 1235 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Omway Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Janak Goyal, Neelam Goyal, Versus Satyendra Jain

    Offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - order passed in Criminal Complaint passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate by virtue of which the petitioners were summoned as accused - whether in presence of the final judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit of this Court, the impugned summoning order is bad in law? - Held NO - The petitioners are invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 1234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    A.C. Narayanan, Versus The State of Maharashtra

    Offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act - court taking cognizance of the offence - Held that - In the present case, the complainant did not arraign the company as an accused when there was no legal impediment in impleading the company as accused. The drawer of the cheque was company which was evident from the cheque. The complainant had knowledge that the accused was impleaded by filing complaint, he was in charge and responsible for condu....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 1233 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    M/s. Swetha Exports rep. by its Prop:Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao Versus Bank of India & Anr.

    Recourse to the provisions of SARFAESI Act - execute the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery - validity of One Time Settlement (OTS) - release the mortgaged property in proportion to the debt repaid by the petitioners - secured creditor disabled from continuing to take action under the SARFAESI ACT merelry because it had later filled an application under sec 19(1)of the RDDB ACT for recovery of its dues? - Held that - If the bank/fi....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 1193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Chennai Micro Print (P) Ltd. Versus The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

    Tax clearance certificate - petitioner was granted a national permit for a goods vehicle - Held that - The petitioner has not sought for surrender of the national permit, since the permit itself had lapsed on and after 08.01.2017. Therefore, all that is required to be given to the petitioner is a tax clearance certificate. - Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside with the direction to the respondent to conside....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 1063 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Dayawati Versus Yogesh Kumar Gosain

    Complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act for amicable settlement through mediation - procedure to be followed upon settlement and the legal implications of breach of the mediation settlement - Settlement of disputes outside the Court - Binding the parties to a settlement agreement - Held that - Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. enumerates and draws a distinction between offences as compoundable, either between the parties or with the leave of the....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 1062 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    M/s. Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And Anr.

    Bidding procedures - directions in respect of the award of a tender by the Union Ministry of Defence (hereafter MoD ) for the acquisition of 606 Material Handing Cranes (MHC) - Whether the bid is to be evaluated on the basis of Cost to User or Cost to State ? - Held that - Vectra refutes this logic of the MoD, and in defence has relied on the Defence Procurement Policy 2013. The DPP 2013 stipulates that bids should be evaluated as per the Cost to....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 979 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Abdul Aziz, Rajeev Verma Versus Central Narcotics Bureau

    Offence under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Held that - Appellant Rajeev Verma is guilty of committing offence under Section 8/21 and 8/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. - This Court has already held that except the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of the co-accused Rajeev Verma and the appellant Abdul Aziz, there is no o....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 978 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Vijay Tata Ravipati Versus Mediascope Publicitas (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

    Proceedings in the criminal complaint - complaint through authorized representatives - offence under NI Act - Offences by Companies - Held that - The complaint was filed through the authorized representative of the respondent no.1 Shri Girish Joshi. His authorization is supported by the resolution passed by the complainant company. The complaint also specifically mentions that the representative has personal knowledge in respect of the facts of t....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 977 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Sunita Rajput Versus Susheela Devi Saini & Ors.

    Suit barred by the provision of Section 4(1) of the Benami Act - suit for partition filed - Held that - A reading of the plaint shows that there is no cause of action pleaded of the suit property being inherited prior to passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or that the suit property was thrown into a common hotchpotch on a particular date, month and year. Also, in any case even assuming a plea was there of an existence of HUF, there is no ev....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version