IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009"

Transcription

1 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B BETWEEN: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009 M.R.ACHUT KUMAR S/O M RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF VIVEK ENTERPRISES OPP:COURT, COLLEGE ROAD R/O KISHKINDE ASHRAM HOSPET, POST & TALUK BELLARY APPELLANT (BY SRI GODE NAGARAJA, ADV.) AND SHEKHAR S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF SHEKHAR TRANSPORT C/O VIJAL NAIDUR CHEMICALS PLOT NO.179/180, 3 RD STAGE, KAIDB, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BELLARY RESPONDENT (BY SRI J BASAVARAJ, ADV.)

2 : 2 : THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, HOSPET, IN C.C.NO. 1369/2007, AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON , THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The judgment and order of acquittal dated passed by the Prl.Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hospet in C.C.1369/2007 has been challenged in this appeal. By the said judgment and order, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellantcomplainant before the trial Court that accused has

3 : 3 : requested the complainant to advance loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet his transport business. The complainant advanced hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused and for discharge of legally recoverable debt, the respondent herein had issued the cheque dated for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Main Bazar Branch, Ballari, in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured with an endorsement payment stopped by the drawer. After dishonour of the cheque, complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount and inspite of service of said notice, accused failed to make the payment thereunder within the stipulated time. Hence, the complainant filed the private complaint before the trial Court for the alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

4 : 4 : In response of the summons, the respondent/accused appeared in the said case and participated in the proceedings. On the side of the complainant, complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked 10 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-10 and on the side of the defence, the respondent/accused examined himself as D.W.1 and one witness as D.W.2 and he has produced the documents marked as per Exs.D-1 and D-2. After considering the merits of the case, ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant/complainant is before this Court and he has challenged the legality and correctness of the said judgment of the trial Court on the grounds as contended in paragraph Nos.9 to 20 of the appeal memorandum.

5 : 5 : 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that with regard to the accused borrowing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant are admitted by the accused during the course of his crossexamination. On the complainant issued the notice by RPAD, which was returned back on , but the notice sent under certificate of posting was served on the respondent-accused. He has also submitted that accused sent the reply notice as per Ex.P-8. Looking to the contents of the reply sent by the respondent-accused, the defence taken in the reply notice and the one taken in the proceedings during the course of trial are totally different.

6 : 6 : He has submitted that though it is the contention of the respondent/accused that notice as per Ex.D-2 was served on the respondent/accused and immediately, thereafter the cause of action arouse for the complainant to file the complaint before the trial Court, and the complaint filed before the trial Court was barred by time and it was not as per the requirement of Sections 138 (b) and 142 of N.I.Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the oral evidence of D.W.1, who is the accused, is very clear that he has not received the notice as per Ex.D-2. Hence, he has submitted that inspite of such admission by the respondent/accused himself, the lower Court wrongly read the evidence and wrongly came to the conclusion that cause of action arouse to the complainant when Ex.D-2 notice was served on the accused. He has submitted that regarding the service of notice Ex.D-2 on the accused there is no acceptable and cogent material placed by the respondent/accused and

7 : 7 : the trial Court also wrongly presumed that it was served on the respondent. Hence, learned counsel has submitted that though the witness D.W.2, the advocate, has been examined on the side of the respondent/accused, but the cross-examination of both D.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that Ex.D-2 was not served on the respondent/accused and it also shows a sort of collusion between the accused and D.W.2. Hence, he has submitted that the trial Court wrongly appreciated the entire materials placed on record and wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, he has submitted that complainant has proved his case with worth believable material and hence, submitted to allow the appeal and to set-aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and to convict the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

8 : 8 : In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions filed along with the memo dated i. AIR 2001 SC 676 in the case of M/s.Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., v. M/s.Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. and others. ii (4) Kar.L.J.279 in the case of Gangadhar v. Raghunathasa. iii (5) Kar.L.J.165 in the case of Smt.Dhakshayani v. Smt.Malathi Dayan. iv (1) Kar.L.J.283 in the case of M.S.Srikara Rao v. H.C.Prakash 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused during the course of his arguments has submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts in this case. Though the complainant got issued legal notice to the respondent through D.W.2 advocate, at the first instance when the respondent/accused brought to the notice of the Court

9 : 9 : about the issuance of such notices on behalf of the complainant by D.W.2, then only the complainant gave answers about the same. Learned counsel has submitted that though the notices were issued by D.W.2 on behalf of the complainant to the respondent/accused by RPAD and also by UCP (Under Certificate of Posting), the notice sent by RPAD was not served on the accused and it was returned back, but the notice sent through UCP was served on the respondent/accused. Hence, it is submitted that when once the postal cover under Ex.D-1 was sent with correct address, then under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, there is a presumption under law that, it is presumed to have been served on the addressee. Learned counsel has submitted that this aspect has been properly appreciated by the trial Court and it considered the evidence both oral and documentary of both sides and came to the conclusion that Ex.D-2- notice was served on the respondent/accused and

10 : 10 : hence, the cause of action for the purpose of limitation arises then and there only. Learned counsel has further submitted that regarding the issuance of such notice to respondent/accused, D.W.2, who has been examined on the side of the accused, has consistently deposed about the issuance of such notice to the respondent/accused. Hence, he has submitted that the trial Court correctly read the evidence and rightly acquitted the accused. Learned counsel has submitted that regarding the alleged collusion between D.Ws.1 and 2 is concerned, the complainant has not placed any cogent and acceptable material before the trial Court. Hence, he submits that trial Court is justified in acquitting the respondent/accused and no illegality has been committed by the trial Court. Hence, submitted to dismiss the appeal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent/accused has relied upon the following decisions filed along with the memo dated

11 : 11 : i. (2005) 4 SCC 417 in the case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and another. ii Cri.L.J.4066 in the case of Sadanandan Bhardan v. Mahdavan Sunil Kumar. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant again submitted that during the course of cross-examination the respondent/accused unequivocally admitted that Ex.D-2 notice was not served on him and even in the reply notice sent to the complainant for the subsequent notice, the accused has not at all mentioned about he received the notice under Ex.D-2. Hence, submitted to allow the appeal as prayed for. 7. I have perused the averments made in the complaint filed before the trial Court, grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and also the

12 : 12 : exhibited documents and oral evidence of the parties adduced before the trial Court. 8. The main contention of the respondent/accused in the case is that the complainant after dishonour of the cheque, issued the legal notice under Ex.D-2 under certificate of posting in the cover Ex.D-1 and same was served on the respondent/accused and hence, cause of action started then and there only, therefore, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is barred by the law of limitation. 9. But it is the contention of the appellant/ complainant that said notice was not at all served on the respondent/accused, even according to the oral evidence of respondent/accused. Hence, the notice issued subsequently i.e., under Ex.P-4, which was sent under certificate of posting was served on the

13 : 13 : respondent/accused, but the notice under RPAD was returned un-served, which was produced as per Ex.P-7 and the respondent/accused sent his reply to the said notice as per Ex.P-8 to the notice sent under Ex.P-4. Hence, it is his contention that the cause of action for filing the private complaint arouse when the reply notice was issued as per Ex.P However, considering the oral evidence of the parties, so also the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.D-1 and D-2 and the evidence of D.W.2, the trial Court held that the complainant has not complied the mandatory provisions of Section 139 and 140 of N.I. Act, hence, the question of considering the other aspects does not arise and the trial Court answered the first point for consideration in the negative and ultimately, dismissed the complaint.

14 : 14 : 11. Perusing the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused before the trial Court, which are referred by the trial Court in its judgment, the principles enunciated in the said decisions cannot be disputed. But the main question for consideration is regarding the factual aspect as to whether the complainant has placed the materials to prove that Ex.D-2 notice was not served on the respondent/accused and hence, the cause of action arose only when the complainant issued the subsequent notice i.e., as per Ex.P-4, for which reply was sent by the respondent/accused under Ex.P It is an admitted fact that complainant and the accused person were known to each other. Perusing the oral evidence of D.W.1 (respondent/accused), during the course of his cross-examination, on page No.3 of the deposition, he has deposed that he has seen the cheque

15 : 15 : shown to him, he admitted that he himself issued the said cheque, even he has admitted the signature as per Ex.P-1(a) is his signature. He has unequivocally admitted that because of the transaction between himself and the complainant, and admitting that he is liable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, he issued the cheque as per Ex.P-1. He has further deposed that there is acquaintance between himself and the complainant from the last 2-3 years and during this period of 2-3 years, he is continuously in contact with the complainant. Himself and the complainant used to meet 2-3 times in a month in connection with the transport business, but he denied that when he was in need of money, he has taken a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as loan from the complainant. Even he has denied that for the discharge of the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, he has issued Ex.P-1 Cheque to the complainant. He has denied the further suggestion that he is deposing falsely that he has given the cheque as security in

16 : 16 : connection with the agreement. On page No.4 of his deposition, he has deposed and admitted as true that the notice sent by the complainant through Sri.Satish, Advocate, was not personally served on him, but the witness volunteered and deposed that complainant informed over phone about the same. He denied the suggestion that complainant has not at all spoken to him over phone about he sending the notice through Satish, Advocate, or about the cheque Ex.P-1. He deposed that he has seen reply notice Ex.P-8, which was according to his information and the contents of the said reply notice are true. It is true that on Ex.D-1 cover, it is mentioned as door lock EzÉ and it is written that same was sent back to the sender of the same and then two lines are drawn and the writings are scored. But witness voluntarily deposed that the said notice was not returned back to the person, who sent it. He again admitted unequivocally as true that Exs.D-1 and D-2, the cover and the notice, respectively, are not served on

17 : 17 : him, but the witness volunteered and deposed that it was in the factory. He has also deposed that before he gave the application to the bank, he has not informed the complainant not to present the cheque for encashment. When it was presented to the bank, there was a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in his account to show the same he has not produced any documents before the Court. 13. D.W.2 Sri G.Satish S/o Shashidar, Advocate, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has seen the cover under Ex.D-1 and it is his office cover, he has seen Ex.D-2 notice, it was issued by him on on behalf of Sri M.R.Achut Kumar i.e., the complainant. The contents of Ex.D-2 are as per the information furnished by his client and he issued Ex.D- 2 notice in connection with Ex.P-1 cheque.

18 : 18 : Generally, in the cheque bounce cases, when statutory notice used to be issued, one will be sent under RPAD and another will sent through UCP. On behalf of the complainant, he sent the notice under RPAD and UCP, after he issued the notice under Ex.D-2, complainant has not at all went to him for filing the case. 14. In his cross-examination, D.W.2 after seeing Ex.D-1, has deposed that after issuing the same, he cannot say that the notice sent by him was unserved and returned back. Similarly, without looking the document, he cannot say that the notice sent under RPAD was unserved to the addressee and it has also returned back. After seeing the document, he will say. When it was suggested that in case, the notice sent under RPAD and UCP were unserved and returned back to the sender they used to be in his custody, the witness answered if at all such documents returned

19 : 19 : back to him, he has given them to his client. He admitted as true that in case, the notice sent under RPAD or by any other mode was not served and returned back to his address, they will be in his custody and they will be continued to be in his custody till his client comes and tell that he wants those documents. When it was specifically suggested by the counsel on behalf of the complainant to this witness that the notice, which said to have been sent by him pertaining to this case were not served to the address of the accused and they were returned back, he has deposed that he does not remember. 15. I have perused the cover Ex.D-1. It is addressed to Sri Sekhar, Prop: Sekhar Transport, C/o. Vijai Naidu Chemicals, Plot No.179/180, III Stage, KAIDB Industrial Estate, BELLARY, and it is from G.Satish, Advocate, 11/679, Bellary Road, Hospet , Phone No and Cell Phone

20 : 20 : No I have also perused Ex.D-2, it is the notice dated , it is on the letter head of said G.Satish, Advocate, Bellary. 16. On Ex.D-1 cover it is mentioned as Door lock EzÉ so returned sender. Then the said words are scored by drawing two lines over the said writing. So far as the evidence of D.W.1 (respondent-accused) is concerned, he has clearly admitted that Ex.D-2 notice was not personally served on him. Even if it is accepted that the notice under Ex.D-2 was sent by Sri G.Satish, Advocate, under the Cover Ex.D-1, on behalf of his client i.e., the complainant to the accused; when it was not served on the respondent/accused, as deposed by him on oath, naturally the cover would have returned back to the said Satish, Advocate, and it ought to be in his custody. Hence, the contention of the appellantcomplainant that the notice was not served on

21 : 21 : respondent-accused also gains support on the basis of the endorsement on the said cover Door lock EzÉ so returned sender. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Even the trial Court observed in his judgment that even though respondent/accused admitted in his oral evidence that it was not served on him that itself will not be sufficient to disbelieve the contention of the respondent/accused. This observation of the trial Court is not correct. Even the trial Court has not appreciated as to how the respondent/accused came into the custody of the said cover when it was admittedly not served on him and if the evidence of D.W.2, the advocate, is taken into consideration, he has deposed that if the notice was returned back to the sender, it will be either in his custody or he will give it to his client i.e., complainant. In view of this evidence of D.W.2 also, the custody of cover under Ex.D-1 along with the notice Ex.D-2 with the respondent/accused cannot be accepted.

22 : 22 : So far as the endorsement on the cover that Door lock EzÉ So returned sender, the parties ought to have examined the postal authorities before the trial Court to clarify the controversy between the parties, which was not done in the case. 17. Looking to the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court has discussed only about the issuance of the notice and its service on the respondent/accused referring to Exs.D-1 and D-2 and observed that since the notice under Ex.D-2 was served on the respondent/accused, the complainant has not complied with mandatory requirements of Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I.Act, hence, the question of considering the other aspects of the matter does not arise. So it clearly shows that the trial Court has not touched the other aspects because it held that Ex.D-2 notice was served on the respondent/accused.

23 : 23 : 18. Looking to the judgment of the trial Court at paragraph 8 r, at page No.12, it is observed by the trial Court that advocate for complainant has vehemently argued, and relied the ruling of Honorable High Court of Karnataka reported in 2008 (4) Kar.L.J 279 wherein, the Honorable High Court of Karnataka held the dictum in Gangadhar V/s.Raghunathasa, and the trial Court extracted the said dictum in its judgment on page And on page No.13 at sub para s. it is observed by the trial Court that in the above said decision Honorable High Court of Karnataka held Cause of action for filing complaint does not commence merely on issuance of notice under clause (b) to proviso to Section 138 of N.I.Act. It commences from date of service of such notice on drawer of cheque. The trial Court also mentioned in paragraph u that no doubt in the said decision reported in 2008 (4) Kar.L.J 279, Honorable High Court of Karnataka, discussed the ruling of Honorable Supreme Court of India reported in

24 : 24 : 1998 Crl.L.J But the trial Court again held that the said decision will not come to the aid of the complainant, because the accused established that Ex.D-2 sent by the complainant was served on him. 19. Let me refer to the oral evidence of the complainant P.W.1 also, who filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, wherein he reiterated the contents of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and he was further examined and got marked the documents Exs.P-1 to P-10. He denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that on there was a contract in between himself and the accused according to which 860 metric ton of iron ore was agreed to be transferred from the mines plot Shiraguppa to Krishnapatanam port, Andhra Pradesh by the accused. He also denied the suggestion that as a security for the said transport business, the accused gave the said cheque to him. He admitted as true that

25 : 25 : he filed the case against one Satish Pritam in the Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) for the cheque amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. He has further admitted that in the said case on his behalf Sri.G Satish, Advocate, was conducing the said case. He admitted that once he presented the said cheque on at Indian Bank, Hospet Branch for encashment, but it was returned back with an endorsement that Insufficient Funds. But he denied the suggestion that after dishonour of the said cheque on , he got issued the notice to the accused through Sri G.Satish, Advocate. He has further denied the suggestion that the notice dated , which was sent through UCP was served on the accused and the notice sent through RPAD was returned back as the door was locked. Then the cover was shown to him in the open Court and he denied the suggestion that the said cover was sent through his advocate informing about the bouncing of the cheque. He has also denied the suggestion that

26 : 26 : after sending the cover, he also informed the accused over phone that he has sent the notice and asked him that after receipt of the said notice to make the payment of the said cheque. He denied the further suggestion that accused has not at all borrowed any loan from him and the cheque, which was given as a security, has been misused by him. 20. Therefore, looking to this oral evidence of the complainant, nowhere he has admitted that after bouncing of the cheque on , he got issued the earlier notice on through G.Satish, Advocate, who has been examined as D.W.2 in this case. Therefore, looking to the entire oral evidence of P.W.1 complainant, nowhere it has been established with cogent and satisfactory material that complainant sent notice as per Ex.D-2 with the cover Ex.D-1 and same was served on the respondent-accused.

27 : 27 : 21. Even looking to the suggestion made during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 that the complainant got issued earlier notice on by RPAD so also by UCP and the notice sent under RPAD returned with an endorsement Door lock EzÉ so returned sender, which probablises the contentions of the complainant that no such notice was served on the respondent-accused. This is why because even on the cover Ex.D-1 also there is an endorsement, which clearly shows that notice under Ex.D-2 was not served on the respondent-accused. 22. Looking to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant filed along with memo dated The decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 676, wherein, Their Lordships have laid down the proposition as under: (A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.1 Interpretation Act to be

28 : 28 : interpreted in light of objectives to be achieved Efforts to defeat objectives of law to be discouraged. (B) Negotiable Instruments Act 926 of 1881), Ss.138, 142 Dishonour of cheque Limitation Cause of action Arises from date of receipt of notice demanding payment First notice demanding payment issued by payee Postal acknowledgment of notice received Contents of envelope however disclaimed to be received by drawer Payee thereupon representing cheque and on dishonour issuing second notice for payment Complaint filed within one month of date of second notice Not barred by limitation. 23. I have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused produced along with the memo of citations dated The decision reported in 2005(4) SCC

29 : 29 : 417, wherein Their Lordships have laid down the proposition as under: A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Ss.138 & 142(b) Dishonour of cheque Cause of action to file complaint on non-payment despite issue of the notice, held, arises but once Another cause of action would not arise on repeated dishonour on presentation of same cheque again subsequent to nonpayment after the first notice Payee is free to present the cheque repeatedly within its validity period but once notice has been issued and payment not received within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, payee has to avail the very cause of action arising thereupon and file the complaint Dishonour of cheque on each presentation gives a fresh right to present it again during the period of its validity, but, held, it does not give ries to a fresh cause of action Complaint has to be filed within one month from the day immediately following the day on

30 : 30 : which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the first notice by the drawer expires Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482. B. Words and Phrases Cause of action Meaning of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.20 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.177. C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 S.138 Prosecution for offence under Facts required to be proved Restated. I have also perused the another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused reported in 1998 Cri.L.J.4066, wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has laid down following principle: Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), Ss.138, 142 Dishonour of cheque Complaint Cause of action Arises and can arise only once Payee can present cheque any number of times during the period of its validity On each presentation and its dishonour a fresh

31 : 31 : right, and not cause of action, accrues in his favour. The principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused shows that cause of action arises only once when the statutory notice was issued by the complainant to the accused and when it was served on him. 24. But here, the question is whether Ex.D-2 notice sent under UCP under Ex.D-1 cover was really served on the respondent-accused, about which, I have made a detailed discussion with reference to the oral evidence of the parities so also the documents. 25. Perusing the entire materials placed on record, I am of the clear opinion that there is no worth believable material placed by the respondent-accused to show that notice under Ex.D-2 was really served on

32 : 32 : him. Hence, the complaint filed by the appellantcomplainant is not barred by the law of limitation. 26. Looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence and the principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by both sides, I am of the opinion that the trial Court wrongly read the evidence and also the position of law placed before it and wrongly held that Ex.D-2 notice sent with the cover under Ex.D-1 was served on the respondent-accused and hence, held that complaint filed is barred by law of limitation. The materials clearly shows that in reality, Ex.D-2 notice was not served on the respondent-accused. Hence, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is illegal and not sustainable in law. 27. Perusing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the trial Court itself has mentioned in its judgment that it considered the

33 : 33 : limitation aspect referring to Ex.D-2 and came to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the appellantcomplainant herein is barred by time and it is specifically observed by the trial Court that as the complaint was barred by time and not maintainable, the question of considering other merits of the case will not arise. Therefore, this clearly shows that the other merits of the case were not touched by the trial Court. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for this Court to remand the matter to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh and to dispose of the same in accordance with law giving opportunity to both the sides to lead their further evidence, if any, so also to produce the documents, if any. Hence, appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of acquittal dated passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hospet, in C.C.1369/2007 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

34 : 34 : However, it is made clear that the observations made in the body of this judgment are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and the trial Court should not be influenced by the said observations while considering the merits of the case and deciding the same. BSR Sd/- JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2722/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2722/2009 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 BETWEEN: BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2722/2009 M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1439 of 2017) N. Harihara Krishnan Appellant Versus J. Thomas Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF JUNE 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1348 OF

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.(C ) No. 1514/2007. Judgment reserved on: September 05, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.(C ) No. 1514/2007. Judgment reserved on: September 05, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl. M.(C ) No. 1514/2007 Judgment reserved on: September 05, 2008 Judgment delivered on: November 03, 2008 Suresh Jindal...

More information

Judgment reserved on: November 22, 2010 Judgment delivered on: November 24, Through: Mr. Tarun Rana, Advocate

Judgment reserved on: November 22, 2010 Judgment delivered on: November 24, Through: Mr. Tarun Rana, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: November 22, 2010 Judgment delivered on: November 24, 2010 + CRL. M.C. NO.2172/2010 & CRL.M.A. No.8555/2010 DHANANJAY JOHRI Through: Mr.

More information

A Quick Guide. February 2017 Edition (Sixth Edition) Includes changes in law introduced by The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015

A Quick Guide. February 2017 Edition (Sixth Edition) Includes changes in law introduced by The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 A Quick Guide To Action on Bouncing of Cheque February 2017 Edition (Sixth Edition) Includes changes in law introduced by The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 www.indialegalhelp.com (This Guide

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 132/2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 132/2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Alauddin, S/o Late Nazar Ali, 2. Mrs. Phulmati W/o Alauddin Both are resident of- Village:-

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 MS. KRITI KOHLI Through: Mr. Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate... Appellant VERSUS

More information

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 31.07.2017 Heard Mr. Pallab Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nava Kumar Kalita, learned Additional Public

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR BETWEEN WRIT APPEAL NO.2828

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 HINDUSTAN INSECTICIEDES LTD.... Appellant Through Mr.

More information

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM) ISSN 0976-6502 (Print) ISSN 0976-6510 (Online) Volume 7, Issue 2, February (2016), pp. 177-182 http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp Journal Impact Factor (2016):

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

THE DISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION) ACT 1888

THE DISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION) ACT 1888 THE DISTRICT AND INTERMEDIATE COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION) ACT 1888 Act 34/1852 LANE CAP 173 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I - PRELIMINARY 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Recovery of cost of sewerage

More information

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH: METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE (NI ACT)-1, CENTRAL: ROOM NO.-42, TIS HAZARI COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH: METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE (NI ACT)-1, CENTRAL: ROOM NO.-42, TIS HAZARI COURT COMPLEX, DELHI 1 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH: METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE (NI ACT)-1, CENTRAL: ROOM NO.-42, TIS HAZARI COURT COMPLEX, DELHI T.B.S.L. vs. Jitesh Sharma CC No.1552/10 ORDER A criminal prosecution

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: 21.03.2012 W.P.(C) No.1616/2012 Ex. Constable Mohan Kumar Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents

More information

REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocate.

REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocate. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. P. No. 120 of 2010 % Date of Reserve: July 29, 2010 Date of Order: 12 th August, 2010 12.08.2010 MOHAN LAL JATIA... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Sud,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A /2011 (stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A /2011 (stay) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A. 19640/2011 (stay) Decided on: 22nd February, 2012 SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13361 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29621 of 2014) Rakesh Mohindra Anita Beri and others versus Appellant (s)

More information

2. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved herein.

2. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved herein. Supreme Court of India Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra on 5 May, 2009 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy(Dead) through LRs..Appellant(s) VERSUS Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao &

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

THE UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS (IMPOSITION OF TAX) BILL, 2015

THE UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS (IMPOSITION OF TAX) BILL, 2015 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 84 of CLAUSES THE UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS (IMPOSITION OF TAX) BILL, ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS.17117 & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: Sri

More information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 CRL.M.C. 5211/2006, CRL.M.C. 5217/2006 CRL.M.C. 5291/2006. CRL.M.C. 5211/2006 and CRL. M.A. No.8864/2006 Date of order

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12581 OF 2015) THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR....APPELLANT(S)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS. Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA BETWEEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1020/2013 SIDDANAGOUDA S/O VENKANAGOUDA

More information

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES,

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 1 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 read with subsections (4), (10) and (12) of section

More information

THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, 2015

THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, 2015 AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA ON 11 MAY, Bill No. 84-C of THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I CLAUSES PRELIMINARY 1. Short title,

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY

DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY For the smooth functioning of an industry, the defined codes of discipline, contracts of service by awards, agreements and standing orders must be adhered to.

More information

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, (1) These rules may be called the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, (1) These rules may be called the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, 1993 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections(1) and (2) of section 36 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Ordinance, 1993

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

More information

NOTIFICATION Shimla -2, the 21st January, 2006

NOTIFICATION Shimla -2, the 21st January, 2006 (Authoritative English Text) GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Shimla -2, the 21st January, 2006 No. PER (AR) F (7) -2/98-Vol.1. - In exercise of the powers

More information

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No. 16809/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No. 16756/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2011) :Versus:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2011) :Versus: 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10173 of 2011) Central Bank of India Appellant :Versus: C.L. Vimla & Ors.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO Writ Appeal No.597 of 2008

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

More information

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. 1 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. Crl. Appeal No. 2/18 of 2012 (Arising out of judgment dtd. 12.4.12 in GR case No.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 4674 of 2012 Mahendra Kumar Ruiya................Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand through. 2. Gautam Kumar Dubey..........Opp. Parties ----------

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3945 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35786 OF 2016) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2017 KLA Const. Technologies Private Limited..Petitioner Versus Kajima India Private Limited Respondent Present:- Dr. Amit George,

More information

CONTENTS. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, Preamble

CONTENTS. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, Preamble CONTENTS Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 Sections Preamble 1. Short title, extent and application 2. Interpretation 3. Submission of draft standing orders 4. Conditions for certification

More information

CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) 3 CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. MAKING OF APPEAL 3. (1) Right of appeal. (2) Appeals

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on: 15.03.2011 Judgment delivered on: 18.03.2011 RSA No.243/2006 & CM No.10268/2006 SHRI.D.V. SINGH & ANR...Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

More information

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN. Writ Petition Nos /2017 (T-IT)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN. Writ Petition Nos /2017 (T-IT) 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition Nos.1339-1342/2017 (T-IT) Between : Flipkart

More information

Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India)... vs Doddabasappa & Ors. on 10 April, 2012

Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India)... vs Doddabasappa & Ors. on 10 April, 2012 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India)... vs Doddabasappa & Ors. on 10 April, 2012 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3800 OF 2006

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 234/2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 234/2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Shri Manik Chakraborty S/o late Bijoy Chakravorty R/o Rangapara Town, Ward No. 4, P.O. Rangapara,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996 Date of Decision: January 08, 2010 M/S. SCANDIA SHIPBROKERING & AGENCY LTD...Plaintiff Through: Mr.Prashant Pratap and

More information

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment delivered on: November 27, 2015 % W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004 M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI... Petitioner Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. versus

More information

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT NO. 14 OF 2007 SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT NO. 14 OF 2007 SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION NO. 14 OF 2007 LABOUR RELATIONS ACT SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION List of Subsidiary Legislation Page 1. Trade Unions Regulations... L2 67 2. Trade Unions (Appeals) Rules... L2 83 3. Trade Unions (Accounts) Regulations...

More information

NOTIFICATION MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD

NOTIFICATION MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i) MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department Of Industrial Policy And Promotion ) NOTIFICATION NEW DELHI, THE 5 th

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION PRESENT: Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha. Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah. Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain. Mr. Justice Md. Shamsul Huda. CIVIL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Date of Reserve: 7th December, 2010 Date of Order: January 04, 2011 Crl. MC No.435/2009 Narcotics Control Bureau...Petitioner

More information

+ I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999. Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate. versus

+ I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999. Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999 Date of Reserve : 05.08.2010 Date of decision: 25.10.2010 SMT. SUDESH MADHOK Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate.... Plaintiff

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) DISTRICT : KOLKATA IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P. No. (W) of 2017 In the matter of :- An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ;

More information

THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946, ACT NO. 20 OF * [23rd April, 1946.]

THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946, ACT NO. 20 OF * [23rd April, 1946.] THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946, ACT NO. 20 OF 1946 1* [23rd April, 1946.] An Act to require employers in industrial establishments formally to define conditions of employment under

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014 DR. ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN Through: Mr.Suraj Rathi, Adv.... Petitioner versus STATE

More information

1990 CHAPTER S HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows:

1990 CHAPTER S HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: 1990 CHAPTER S-63.1 An Act respecting Summary Offences Procedure and Certain consequential amendments resulting from the enactment of this Act (Assented to June 22, 1990) HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice

More information

The Deserted Wives and Children s Maintenance Act

The Deserted Wives and Children s Maintenance Act The Deserted Wives and Children s Maintenance Act UNEDITED being Chapter 341 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1965 (effective February 7, 1966). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments

More information

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION NCTE RULES CONTENTS 1. Short title commencement 2. Definition 3. Certain Expert Members of the Council 4. Members representing States and Union Territories 5. Conditions of service of the Chairperson,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: 11.03.2011 RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA...Petitioner Through: Mr Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr Piyush

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 7284 of 2016) CHANDRAKESHWAR PRASAD @ CHANDU BABU Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF

More information

Legal Business. Overview Of Court Procedure. Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities

Legal Business. Overview Of Court Procedure. Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities Memoranda on legal and business issues and concerns for multiple industry and business communities Overview Of Court Procedure 1 Rajah & Tann 4 Battery Road #26-01 Bank of China Building Singapore 049908

More information

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No. 59 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No. 59 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No. 59 of 2010 Milan Poddar...... Appellant Vrs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Main Road, Ranchi & Another...... Respondents ------

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN.M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN.M. SHANTANAGOUDAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN.M. SHANTANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION Nos.14307-14309 OF 2009 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 24.05.2011 WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.7523/2011 YUDHVIR SINGH Versus Through: PETITIONER Mr.N.S.Dalal,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 {Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 {Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016} IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9288 OF 2017 {Arising out of SLP(C) No.30562 of 2016} K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS...Appellants Versus THE SPECIAL DEPUTY

More information

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam.

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 429 of 2008 The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & Another.Petitioners Versus All India Council

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 21st October 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 21st October 2004 Dosoruth v. Mauritius (Mauritius) [2004] UKPC 51 (21 October 2004) Privy Council Appeal No. 49 of 2003 Ramawat Dosoruth v. Appellant (1) The State of Mauritius and (2) The Director of Public Prosecutions

More information

K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, all appeals

K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, all appeals Madras High Court K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16-2-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE

More information

FINAL ORDER NO /2014 APPEAL NO. E/58979 OF 2013 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

FINAL ORDER NO /2014 APPEAL NO. E/58979 OF 2013 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 Cenvat Credit : If sales are on FOR basis, with risk being borne by manufacturer till delivery to customer and composite value of sales includes value of freight involved in delivery at customer's premises,

More information

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman. Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person. Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman. Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person. Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD been settled. It is submitted by both the parties that the matter has On

More information

III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS.

III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. Respondents CRP No. 4099 of 2013 Decided on 26.9.2013

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 4071/2013 Rahim Ali @ Rahimuddin @ Md. Abdul Rahim, S/o. Late Kuddush Ali @ Kaddus Ali @ Kurdush

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE OF SUMMONS. Crl. M.C. No. 18/2012 & Crl.M.A. No.59/2012 (stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE OF SUMMONS. Crl. M.C. No. 18/2012 & Crl.M.A. No.59/2012 (stay) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE OF SUMMONS Crl. M.C. No. 18/2012 & Crl.M.A. No.59/2012 (stay) Reserved on: 7th February, 2012 Decided on: 5th March, 2012 SWISS TIMING LTD. Petitioner

More information

Supplement No. 4 published with Gazette No. 13 of 26th June, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

Supplement No. 4 published with Gazette No. 13 of 26th June, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Supplement No. 4 published with Gazette No. 13 of 26th June, 2006. Criminal Procedure Code (2006 Revision) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (2006 Revision) Law 13 of 1975 consolidated with Laws 5 of 1979, 17 of

More information

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL Page 1 of 18 IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH, GUWAHATI. OA. NO. 23/2012 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H. N. Sarma, Member (J) HON BLE CMDE MOHAN PHADKE (Retd), Member (A) Smti Anupama Sinha

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR BETWEEN W.P. NO.466 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) SRI ANANTHAIAH S/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 55

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos.15238-40/2010 RAJ KUMAR BARI & ORS...Appellant through Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. versus SHIV RANI & ORS...Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2012 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020...Appellant.

More information

Date of Filing:21/01/2009 Date of Order :.07/05/2009 BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20

Date of Filing:21/01/2009 Date of Order :.07/05/2009 BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20 Page 1 of 5 Date of Filing:21/01/2009 Date of Order :.07/05/2009 BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20 Dated: 7 th DAY OF MAY 2009 PRESENT Sri.

More information

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27162 of 2011 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Singh...... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar......

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 5th August, 2011 Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 FAO(OS) 502/2009 LT. COL S.D. SURIE Through: -versus-..appellant

More information

DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CHAPTER XXVII

DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CHAPTER XXVII 1 DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CHAPTER XXVII NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL RULES, 2013 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 469 read with section 408 of Companies Act, 2013 the Central

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 307 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2011 Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, 21 st Floor, RBI Building, Shahid

More information

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1968 (NLCD 252) Section 1-The Registrar of Co-operative Societies. There shall be appointed by the National Liberation Council an officer who shall be called the Registrar of

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR. WRIT PETITION Nos OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR. WRIT PETITION Nos OF 2015 (GM-CPC) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.460-462 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.B.R.NAGALAKSHMI

More information