//
archives

Petition

This tag is associated with 40 posts

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity.P.C.) = Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(b) IPC = Fraud played on Bank in collusion with Bank Officers for 2.51 crores – Criminal case – Charge sheet filed – Earlier Quash petitions are withdrawn, dismissed and a direction was also given for speedy trial – reached final – Again for Quash – Single judge allowed as it is a civil case – amount can be recovered through civil means – Apex court allowed the appeal filed by state and set aside the orders of High court stating that Alternative relief for recovery of amount is not a ground for quashing the F.I.R and Charge sheet and with out challenging the earlier orders = STATE THROUH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APEPAL NO. 1959 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.)NO.1501 OF 2010) TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. … APPELLANT VS. STATE AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40986

Section  482  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure (for  brevity.P.C.) = Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(b) IPC = Fraud played on Bank in collusion with Bank Officers for 2.51 crores – Criminal case – Charge sheet filed – Earlier Quash petitions are withdrawn, dismissed and a direction was also given for speedy trial – reached final … Continue reading

WRIT- CONSUMER COMMISSION- SEC. 46,47 OF INSURANCE OF ACT – WHO HAS TO FILE A CIVIL SUIT IN CIVIL COURT = WHEN CONSUMER COMMISSION REFUSED TO DECIDED AN INSURANCE CLAIM = National Consumer Reddressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein it has opined that all the cases require recording of voluminous evidence and that realising this difficulty, the learned counsel representing the appellants/revision petitioners sought liberty to approach the civil Court for the purpose of recovering the claim amounts. Accordingly, liberty was given to them to approach the civil Court. ; who among the parties must approach the civil Court. under sec.47 of INSURANCE ACT= the occasion for the insurer to approach the civil Court under Section 47 of the Act would arise when there is no dispute as to the payment of the insured amount but the dispute as to the persons to whom the amount has to be paid or if there is insufficiency of proof of title to the amount secured or any other adequate reason which render it impossible for the insurer to obtain a satisfactory discharge for the payment of such amount. It is not the pleaded case of either party that the insurer is willing to discharge the insured amount but on account of any one or more of the above noted reasons contained under Section 47 of the Act, the insurer is unable to secure discharge. As noted herein before, all the insurance companies have resisted the claims of the petitioners before all the fora on the ground that there are serious suspicious circumstances rendering the very claims of the nominees of the insured, doubtful. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts of the cases on hand, I have no doubt in my mind that Section 47 of the Act has no application to the present cases and there is no obligation cast on the insurance companies to approach the civil Court. As rightly undertaken by the petitioners before the National Consumer Reddressal Commission, it is they who need to approach the civil Court by way of regular civil suits if they intend to claim the insured amounts as the purported nominees of the policyholders. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9852     THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY   Writ Petition No. 30752 of 2012 and Batch   02-04-2013   Khalida Begum and another   The Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Division Office at Opposite Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad Rep.by its Divisional Manager Claims and another.   Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.A.Barifor Md.Ajmal Ahmed … Continue reading

“transportation for life” A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life. The petitioner – a life convict has filed this contempt petition against the respondents – the State of West Bengal and its officers for disobeying the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this Court by not complying with the same within the prescribed period of eight weeks and failure to release him in accordance with the statute. – “The life convict was convicted on 18.01.1990 under Section 302/34 IPC and detained in connection with S.T. No. 01 of June 1989. He was released on parole from Presidency Correctional Home on 29.04.2005 in compliance with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2004. The police authority vehemently opposed the premature release of the life convict on the following grounds: (a) He was a notorious fellow in the area before his conviction. (b) He still maintains relationship with his old associates. 20Page 21 (c) He is within the age of 52 years with sound health. (d) His socio economic condition is not sound. (e) In case of his premature release there is every possibility of his reverting to criminality. (f) During his parole he has been technically serving life imprisonment binding him to refrain from criminal activities for the time being. There is every possibility of his committing further crimes. Considering the above fact, the Review Board did not find any reason to recommend premature release of the life convict now on parole.” It is seen that after careful consideration of all the aspects, the Review Board in its meeting held on 27.01.2011 did not recommend the petitioner for his premature release. The recommendation of the Review Board was placed before the State Government and the State Government accepted the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The decision of the State Government was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. 790-J dated 09.02.2012. In view of the decision of the State Sentence Review Board, approval by the State Government and the principles enunciated in various decisions of this Court including the decision of the Constitution Bench in Gopal Vinayak Godse’s case (supra), we find no merit in the contempt petition, consequently, the same is dismissed.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 363 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No. 279 OF 2004 Life Convict Bengal @ Khoka @ Prasanta Sen …. Petitioner (s) Versus B.K. Srivastava & Ors. …. Alleged Contemnors/ Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) … Continue reading

the petitioners who filed the complaints before the District Forum, are agriculturists and their land is situated in village Nagamtha. It is the contention of the complainants that the representative of the respondent company at Shrirampur, approached them and suggested to participate in their seed production programme for JRO-524 variety Jute crop during kharif season. The respondent was to arrange at their expense all the operations such as land preparation, sowing, manuring, plant protection, harvesting etc. The complainants / petitioners were assured a minimum procurement price of Rs.1,000/- per quintal of seed produced. The average yield assured by the respondent company by using JRO-524 variety seed supplied by them was 8 to 10 quintal per acre. The petitioners participated in the seed production programme for a total area of 25 acre and accordingly, the name of the petitioner no. 1 was registered under the programme with the respondent company. The petitioners purchased 21 kg. of the said variety of seeds @Rs.20 per kg. from the respondent company. They also paid registration fee and the inspection fee as well as testing charges. Sowing of the seed, in question, was completed by the petitioners on 5.08.93 under the instructions and supervision of the respondents. In spite of the rainfall being good, it is the contention of the petitioners that the germination of the seeds in the field was not uniform. In fact, germination was very poor. He brought this to the notice of the respondents upon which their representative visited the land, but no action was taken. According to the petitioners, they received a copy of letter dated 9.9.1993 addressed by the respondents to the District Seed Certification Officer, Aurangabad informing that the area under jute cultivation by the petitioner is withdrawn from certification due to failure of the crop. The petitioners were required to replough the entire 25 acre to make it ready for the next Rabi season and in the circumstances, they suffered heavy loss and damages for which they approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint demanding compensation of Rs.4,47,544/-. = In the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods purchased were not for self-consumption, but ultimately were for resale, and primarily it was for commercial purpose, with a view to make profit. Nobody undertakes plantation of 1800 poplar trees for sale (resale) in full or part without the aim of earning – profit. Nobody takes up any such activity in 9 acres of irrigated land for self-employment. 14. In the aforementioned circumstances, in our view, the complainant will not fall within the definition of consumer as per law settled on subject by this Commission and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited earlier in view of which Consumer Fora would not have entertained this complaint. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, complaint is dismissed. 15. However, if the respondents / complainant chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and, in such a case, he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute (supra).”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION  NO. 3829 & 3829-A OF 2007 (From the order dated 06.07.2007 in Appeal No. 368 & 407/1999 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)   1.  Prithviraj Naryanrao Chavan, R/o Village Nagamthan, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad Maharashtra 2.  Pralhad Laxmanrao Chavan, R/o Village Nagamthan, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad Maharashtra                                             …      Petitioner (s) Versus The National Seeds Corporation Ltd., … Continue reading

discharge of accused =Though the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the first information report, no specific overt act is attributed against him in the complaint. Further, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer do not disclose that the petitioner was present either at the scene of occurrence or he participated in the crime, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that pending of the case against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2275 of 2011   ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 17.10.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2011 in S.C.No.147 of 2011 on the file of the III Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada, … Continue reading

mere pleadings are not enough, one has to file affidavit to prove the case. absence of affidavit is fatal=No evidence has been filed before us through this revision petition to rebut the ground on which the appeal came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. Coming to the merits, so far as the order of the District Forum is concerned, we find that as per the well-established procedure the District Forum has to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. Since the petitioner failed to prove its submissions through affidavit in evidence, the same could not be accepted by the District Forum. It is seen from the order of the District Forum that after filing its reply containing submissions not supported by any affidavit, the petitioner also chose to remain absent and was proceeded against ex parte. In the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum or dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the State Commission through the impugned order.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2864 OF 2011 (From the Order dated 31.05.2011 in FA No 738/2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Indian Institute of Professional Studies Through Mr. Anuj Kumar Goyal                                                       Petitioner Assistant Director Deep Bhawan, Polytechnic Chauraha Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) Versus Smt. … Continue reading

what are to be consider while framing charges ?=whether in a revision petition challenging an order framing charges against the accused, the latter could rely upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C. and whether the High Court would be justified in quashing the charges under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of such documents. =”The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the “Code”) grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra case, (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to 14 adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence.” 13. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4606 of 2011 Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd. & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Rajeev Sawhney & Anr. …Respondents With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.4672 of 2011 Pawan Kumar …Petitioner Versus Rajeev Sawhney & Anr. …Respondents 1 J U D G … Continue reading

matrimonial disputes = divorce, custody of children = the custody of the two children.= We, accordingly, make the following interim arrangement: (i) The respondent-husband is directed to bring both daughters, namely, Kirti Bhalla and Ridhi Bhalla, to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre at 10 a.m. on Saturday of every fortnight and hand over both of them to the petitioner-wife. The mother is free to interact with them and take them out and keep them in her house for overnight stay. On the next day, i.e., Sunday at 10 a.m. the petitioner-wife is directed to hand over the children at the residence of the respondent-husband. The above arrangement shall commence from 17.12.2011 and continue till the end of January, 2012. (ii) The respondent-husbad is directed to inform the mobile number of elder daughter (in the course of hearing, we were informed that she is having separate 6

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 35468-35469 OF 2009 Gaytri Bajaj …. Petitioner (s) Versus Jiten Bhalla …. Respondent(s) O R D E R 1) The petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 10.12.1992 and two daughters were born out of the said wedlock. The elder … Continue reading

contempt of court =Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that an apology has been given by the contemnors pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.968 of 2009 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5593 of 2006) and this apology is in force. He further submitted that the facts stated in the Contempt Petition would show that the contemnors are repeatedly intimidating the 9 applicant and his family members and for this reason the applicant has made a prayer to the Court to pass an order commanding the contemnors not to enter within 100 metres of the premises of Santosh Medical College and its administrative block, hospital, hostel and the residence of the applicant.=We cannot possibly direct the contemnors not to go to any public place such as the public road, bank, shopping complex but considering all aspects of the matter, we direct that the two contemnors will not enter into the premises of Santosh Medical College, its 10 administrative block, its hospital, its hostel and the residence of the applicant. The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.

1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.7 of 2010 (In Criminal Appeal No.2323 of 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 666 of 2010) P. Mahalingam …… Applicant Versus Monica Kumar & Anr. …… Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2323 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special … Continue reading

transfer petition, child visitations rights, exemption from personal appearance in criminal cases to the old couple accused.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.5213 Of 2010 Deepti Bhandari … Petitioner Vs. Nitin Bhandari & Anr. … Respondents WITH TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.856-857 OF 2010 O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were married to each … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,460 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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