gujarat state

This tag is associated with 4 posts

filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the court has taken cognizance. This Court categorically accepted the CBI’s plea that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is a part of the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR and in spite of the fact that this Court directed the CBI to “take over” the investigation and did not grant the relief as prayed, namely, registration of fresh FIR, the present action of CBI filing fresh FIR is contrary to various judicial pronouncements which is demonstrated in the earlier part of our judgment. – In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the second FIR dated 29.04.2011 being RC No. 3(S)/2011/Mumbai filed by the CBI is contrary to the directions issued in judgment and order dated 08.04.2011 by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2009 and accordingly the same is quashed. As a consequence, the charge sheet filed on 04.09.2012, in pursuance of the second FIR, be treated as a supplementary charge sheet in the first FIR. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the claim of both the parties and it is for the trial Court to decide the same in accordance with law. Consequently, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2012 is allowed. Since the said relief is applicable to all the persons arrayed as accused in the second FIR, no further direction is required in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2013.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 149 OF 2012 Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah …. Petitioner(s) Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. …. Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 5 OF 2013 J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Amitbhai Anilchandra … Continue reading

After completing the entire transaction of purchasing a car for 11 lakhas and add, the subsequent price decrease offer to the public is not amount unfair trade practice and it is not deficiency of service the price of the car is declared as Rs.9,99,999/- in the special offer. Despite that opponent No. 2 has recovered Rs.11,63,876/- from the complainant. The Opponent No.2 has usurped the benefit of special offer and has recovered excess amount of Rs.1,38,877/-. The complainant No.2 has usurped the same. Agreement is over on 3.9.08. Car is delivered to the complainant. Amount has been paid. Full and final payment has been made. Thereafter if any advertisement has been published between 6.9.08 to 9.9.08, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit. Because the agreement was over and price was paid before that. No special offer was published in newspaper on the dates on which agreement of car was over. The complainant is therefore not entitled to get benefit of offer. It is the say of the complainant that had the Opponent No.2 informed about such offer, the complainant would not have purchased the car as is purchased. He would have purchased the car at a lesser price under the offer. So we do not agree with the contention of complainant that opponents have resorted to unfair trade practice. Because the seller is not bound to declare the secrets of his trade. Again the seller is not bound to inform the consumer about the date of advertisement of the scheme. There are no such rules. If the seller is kept in ban like this then seller cannot do business before the scheme. Under these circumstances, we do not agree with the contention of complainant that Opponent No.2 is bound to inform about future scheme and by not doing so, opponent No.2 has resorted to unfair trade practice.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 94  OF  2012 (From the order dated 22.09.2011 in Appeal No.491/2010 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad) Shri Shankerlal L. Sachdev, Advocate Meera, 36/C/A, Bhuj – Kachchh, Gujarat                                                                                               …….. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Managing Director, Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. A/1/1, M.I.D.C., Five Star Industries Area, Shendra, Aurangabad – 431 201 2. The … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=on 18th January,2008 Online Demat Account was opened by India Infoline Ltd. A/C No.1204470001776230 and POA ID was given as VAHARISH. It is stated that ownership of Online Trader Terminal Software was given i.e. access to Online Trader Terminal Software for the said POA ID (Client ID- VAHARISH). On 22nd February,2008, an application was made by the appellant for the Initial Public Offer of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (REC Ltd.) in the name of Harishkumar Chandrakant Vakharia (HUF). Cheque Number was 163127, cheque amount was Rs.94,500/-, Bank name was ICICI Bank, S.G.Road branch and the Bank A/C number was 029501001050 of HUF saving account. Appellant has submitted that on 7th March,2008, Karvy.com displayed allotment of 121 (amount Rs.12,705/-) shares of REC Ltd. and remaining amount of Rs.81,795/- came to be credited into the above mentioned bank account. It is further submitted that the said shares were not credited in the appellant’s Online Demat Account after they were allotted. A message was alleged to have been displayed that Online Demat Account is closed.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 1/2009 Date of decision May 26,2010 SH. Harish Kumar C.Vakaria …..APPELLANT Through Mr.Manan S.Thakker, Advocate and Mr.Hardik Gupta,Advo Vs M/s India Infoline Ltd.. …..RESPONDENT Through Mr.Y.H.Motiramani,Advo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL … Continue reading

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Ss. 451 and 452-Custody or disposal during inquiry or trial of properly seized by police-Valuable articles, currency notes, vehicles, liquor, narcotic drugs etc. -Directions given for custody arid disposal of such articles so that no loss is caused either to State exchequer or to the owner of the property or to the Insurance company because of keeping them for a long time either in Police Malkhanas or at Police Stations. =CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 2745 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6 2002 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. R.A. No. 241 of 2002. WITH S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2755 of 2002. Ujwal Kumar Jha, Aslam Ahmed, Ranjan Kumar Jha, Nakul Dewan and Ejaz Maqbool for the Petitioners. S.K. Dholakia and Ms. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent. =2003 AIR 638 , 2002(3 )Suppl.SCR39 , 2002(10 )SCC283 , 2002(9 )SCALE153 , 2002(10 )JT80

  CASENO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2745 of 2002 PETITIONER: SUNDERBHA1 AMBALAL DESAI RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/10/2002 BENCH: M.B. SHAH & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(3) SCR 39 The following Order of the Court was delivered : In these two petitions filed by the police inspectors serving the Gujarat State, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,323 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com