Search by Keywords x
Indlaw Home                                                                                          contact us contact us | home help
 Welcome Guest | Jul 28 2014
 

HOME

Search By Databases
  

Subject Modules
  down

State Modules
  down

Legal Focus
  down

 

Login

  Subscribe


Latest Updates
Search by Databases
Indlaw Resources
Indlaw Channels

indlaw updates


Judgments

Rajeev Dhawan vs Gulshan Kumar Mahajan and others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Jul 2014]

Deva Ram vs State of Rajasthan and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Jul 2014]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 406, 420 - Cheating - Conviction - Sustainability - A case was registered against accused/appellant u/ss. 406, 420 of IPC - Trial Court passed conviction order - Appellant appealed to Appellate Court and the same was dismissed - Appellant filed revision application before HC and the same was dismissed - Hence instant appeal - Whether impugned order passed by HC was justified -

Held, application was filed by appellant in view of settlement, offence might be permitted to be compounded - Original complainant and appellant were close relatives - Original complainant expired - Son of complainant was not keen on prosecuting proceedings - Appellant agreed to pay settlement amount to 'A' - 'A' filed affidavit confirming that matter was settled and appellant paid agreed amount to him - Copy of Deed of Compromise was also filed in Court - Counsel for parties had confirmed that matter was settled - Out of two years imprisonment appellant has undergone six months imprisonment - Offence u/s. 420 of IPC was compoundable with permission of Court by person who was cheated - Since parties were related to each other and they had decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, SC permitted them to compound offence - Offence u/s. 420 of IPC for which appellant was convicted was compounded because it was compoundable with permission of Court - Appeal disposed of.


Ramdas S/o Khelunaik vs Krishnanand S/o Vishnu Naik  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Jul 2014]
Criminal - Banking & Finance - Practice & Procedure - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, s. 138 - Dishonor of cheque - Conviction - Sustainability - Accused/appellant issued impugned cheque to respondent/complainant which was dishonored for 'stop the payment' - In spite of issuing statutory notice appellant did not comply with - Respondent initiated proceedings against appellant for offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Act - Trial Court acquitted appellant - Respondent filed appeal before HC and the same was allowed and judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside - Hence instant appeal - Whether HC was justified in convicting appellant -

Held, SC found no material on record in support of claim of complainant giving hand loan to appellant - There was also no calculation of account or stipulation of any interest on alleged loan amount to show as to how amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was figured, in return of hand loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- if at all taken by appellant from complainant - It was also not on record whether there was sufficient balance amount or not in bank account of appellant when Cheque was dishonored by Bank - Complainant himself stated in cross-examination that after Cheque was returned without payment, he has not made any enquiry with Bank as whether sufficient funds were available or not in account of appellant - In absence of any authenticated and supporting evidence, SC could not believe that respondent who was employed under appellant, has raised an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- that too by obtaining loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Bank, only to give hand loan to his employer - As respondent himself admitted that his net savings in year comes to about Rs. 10,000/-, it was not trustworthy that he was in position to extend hand loan of such big amount to appellant - DW6 has clearly deposed that appellant stated to him about four years back that he had entered into an agreement with respondent in presence of DW2 to purchase 3 acres of land belonging to complainant and also paid Rs. 30,000/- in cash as advance money and issued a Cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- - Looking at corroborative evidence adduced by defense witnesses and more particularly, in absence of any material evidence in support of claim of respondent - Impugned judgment of HC was set aside and judgment of Trial Court was restored - Appeal allowed.


Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Arun Shourie  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Jul 2014]

Eswar Constructions A Registered Partnership Firm, Bangalore, Represented By Its Managing Partner S. Dhanalakshmi W/o Late M. Eswar Raju vs Hdfc Bank Limited, Represented By Its Manager, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

Meddiff Technologies Private Limited, Represented by its Chief Executive, Bangalore vs (1) Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences And Research An Autonomous Institute Owned by the Government of Karnataka, Bangalore Represented by its Chief Administrative Office; (2) State Of Karnataka Represented By Department of Health Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore Represented by its Secretary; (3) Moksha Digital Software Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

(1) State of Delhi; (2) Virender @ Mintu; (3) Surender @ Kalwa and another vs (1) Surender @ Kalwa and others; (2) State of Delhi  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

Rahul and others vs State of Haryana  [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

In Re : Seashore Securities Limited, Prashanta Kumar Dash, Pravat Kumar Dash, Jyotirani Sarangi, Surath Das, Shantiprava Dash, Manoj Kumar Nath, Prativa Dash, Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Pati, Sapna Jena, Gopal Chandra Sahu vs   [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 23 Jul 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai vs HDFC Bank Limited  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

Anehaque vs State of West Bengal  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 23 Jul 2014]

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, Mumba vs (1) Net 4 India Limited, New Delhi; (2) Amarjit Singh Sawhney; (3) Jasjit Singh Sawhney  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s.9 - Dispute - Appointment of Court receiver - Sustainability - By the petition filed u/s. 9 of Act the petitioner sought appointment of court receiver or some other fit and proper person as receiver of the equipments with all powers under O.40 r.1 of CPC including power to take forcible physical possession and to sell the same and for various other reliefs - Whether HC had jurisdiction to entertain this petition filed u/s. 9 of Act -

Held, it was not in dispute that the respondents were carrying on business at New Delhi and part of the cause of action arose at New Delhi - It was also not in dispute that the agreement between M/s.Connect Residuary Private Limited and the respondent no.1 which recorded an arbitration agreement provided that the venue of the arbitration should be at Mumbai - Said agreement was executed at Mumbai - Under the agreement entered into M/s. Connect Residuary Private Limited and respondent no.1, the said M/s. Connect Residuary Private Limited was permitted to transfer or assign the rights and obligations to a third party u/cl. 25.1 of the said agreement - Said M/s. Connect Residuary Private Limited had informed the respondent no.1 about such assignment - Respondent no.1 had accepted such assignment and agreed to pay all the amounts due and payable under the said agreement between M/s.Connect Residuary Private Limited and respondent no.1 to the petitioner - Respondent nos.2 and 3 thereafter executed personal guarantee in favour of the petitioner - Respondents made payment of rent for some period to the petitioner - Since the petitioner had stepped into the shoes of said M/s.Connect Residuary Private Limited and the said agreement between the said M/s. Connect Residuary Private Limited and the respondent no.1 stood assigned in favour of the petitioner, all the rights and obligations of the said M/s. Connect Residuary Private Limited including right to invoke arbitration agreement stood assigned in favour of the petitioner - Petition disposed of.


Zile Singh vs State of Haryana and another  [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

Kirti Sharma vs State of Haryana and another  [PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

In Re : Hubtown Limited vs   [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 22 Jul 2014]

Saurabh Kumar vs Jailor, Koneila Jail and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Jul 2014]

R. Krishna S/o Late Rangaiah Naidu vs State of Karnataka by Channamanakere Achukattu Police Station, Bangalore  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

(1) Murugesh S/o Late Gopalan; (2) Manikanta S/o Late Karpuswamy vs State of Karnataka, by Hassan Extension Police Station, Hassan District  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

(1) Chandrashekar S/o Siddegowda; (2) B. S. Hemalatha D/o Siddegowda vs State of Karnataka  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

Shyam Narain Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Jul 2014]

K. M. Mallaiah S/o M. Mallaiah vs State of Karnataka  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

Lakshmisha. G. S/o Govindaraju vs State by C.P.I. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Kudur  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

(1) Vishakantachari S/o Late Kariyachari; (2) Shanthamma W/o Vishakantachari vs State of Karnataka Represented by the S.H.O., Mandya  [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

Rakesh Kumar Juneja and others vs Hans Raj Vij and others  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]

Niloo Ranjan Kumar vs Union of India and others  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 22 Jul 2014]



 Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer