advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
and final judgment.
Cheque bounce case – quashed by apex court = whether the director is liable for the cheque issued even after resignation -inasmuch as the certified copy of the annual return dated 30.09.1999 is a public document, more particularly, in view of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, we hold that the appellant has validly resigned from the Directorship of the Company even in the year 1998 and she cannot be held 14 = whether a complaint can be quashed on the probable defense of the accused-however, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents — which are beyond suspicion or doubt — placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial court. In such a matter, for 13 = whether a certified copy of annual return of a company is a public document ?=Sub-section (1) of Section 74 refers to public documents and sub-section (2) provides that public documents include “public records kept in any State of private documents”. A conjoint reading of Sections 159, 163 and 610(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 make it clear that a certified copy of annual return is a public document
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2033 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 85 of 2011 Mrs. Anita Malhotra …. Appellant(s) Versus Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This … Continue reading
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Impleadment of Pendente lite purchaser and direction to work out equity in his favour – Propriety of – Suit for partition – Pendentelite purchase of a portion of suit property – Impleadment of purchasers at appellate stage – Suit decreed as per terms of compromise – High Court at the instance of purchasers directing the trial court to work out equity in their favour by allotting them the suit property and paying compensation to the vendor and the co-sharers who were not party to the sale-deed – Held: Propriety of impleadment order cannot be disturbed – However, direction to work out equity not sustainable – Purchasers were since impleaded during pendency of final decree proceedings, all the issues relegated in pending final decree proceedings – Courts are not supposed to encourage pendentelite transactions and regularize such conduct by sharing equity in favour of such purchaser – Equity. In a suit for partition, preliminary decree was granted. The same was challenged in appeal. During pendency thereof, respondents 8 and 9 (pendentelite purchasers of suit item No. 9), were impleaded as respondents in the appeal. The issue in suit was closed by recording compromise between the parties before High Court whereby the parties agreed to the partition. Thereafter, on the application by the purchasers-respondents, High Court directed trial court to work out equity in favour of the purchasers by allotting them suit item No. 9 in their favour and to compensate the plaintiffs and other sharers who were not parties to the sale-deed in the final decree proceedings. In appeal to this court, the questions for consideration were: (1) whether High Court was justified in impleading the purchasers pendentelite as party respondents in the appeal, and (2) whether High Court was justified in issuing direction for allotment of suit item No. 9 in favour of purchasers and for payment of compensation to other sharers. =Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. In view of the fact that respondent-purchasers purchased item No.9 of the suit property from respondent No. 1 and others who are sharers, the order of the High Court impleading them as respondents in the proceedings cannot be disturbed. [Para 8] [495-G-H; 496-A] 2. However, direction for payment of compensation to the plaintiff and others and working out equity are set aside. When the purchasers approached the High Court for their impleadment and for directions, final decree proceeding was pending before the trial Court. Respondent-purchasers purchased item No.9 from the first respondent pendente lite. In fact, the courts are not supposed to encourage pendente lite transactions and regularize their conduct by showing equity in their favour. In such circumstances, it is proper to relegate all the issues in the final decree proceedings which is pending before the trial Court. [Paras 8 and 9] [496- C-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 15.06.2006 and the subsequent order dated 17.6.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.207 of 2003. Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohan Bhat, Hetu Arora and A. Dashrath, for the Appellants. Krishna Mani, B. Vishwanath Bhandarkar, V.N. Raghupathy, M.N. Uma Shankar and B.S. Sharma for the Respondents.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20131 of 2006) Marirudraiah & Ors. …. Appellant(s) Versus B. Sarojamma & Ors. …. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orders dated … Continue reading
whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused and allowed the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra, respondent herein and enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to death which was imposed by = murders were not pre-planned or pre-meditated. No weapon much less dangerous was used in commission of offence. As pointed out earlier, only on account of property dispute, the appellant went to the extent of committing murders.=In our opinion, it is not a rarest of rare case where extreme penalty of death is called for instead sentence of imprisonment for life as ordered by the trial Court would be appropriate.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2006 Sham @ Kishor Bhaskarrao Matkari …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the common final judgment and order dated 03.05.2006 … Continue reading
The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1531 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3361 of 2011) Shah Nawaz …. Appellant (s) Versus State of U.P. & Anr. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 