advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
retirement benefits
The employees who retired under the Scheme form a separate class of employees who were given many benefits, which are not given to employees retiring in normal course. If they all form a separate class, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that all those who retired under the Scheme and those who retired in normal course, are similarly situated. Thus, in our opinion, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the instant case.- the employees who had opted for retirement under the Scheme would not be entitled to additional pension upon revision of pay effected under the Notification dated 21st December, 2005.=TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO. 48 OF 2010 Manojbhai N. Shah & Ors. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO. 48 OF 2010 Manojbhai N. Shah & Ors. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents WITH T.C.(C)No.7/2011, T.C.(C)No.45/2010 T.C.(C)No.47/2010,T.C.(C)No.46/2010 T.C.(C)No.6/2011,T.C.(C)No.19/2011, T.C.(C)No.23/2011,T.C.(C)No.20/2011, T.C.(C)No.21/2011 SLP(C)No.10903/2011, T.C.(C)No.82/2011,T.C.(C)No.83/2011 T.C.(C)No.49/2010, T.C.(C)No.27/2014 & T.C.(C)No.28/2014 1 J U D G M E N T 1 ANIL R. … Continue reading
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act In the present case, the accused has not disputed her signature on Ex.P-1, the cheque. But according to her, the blank cheque was issued in favour of Ushodaya Finance Company in which complainant’s son is a partner and the complainant misused the same for filing the complaint and she further pleaded that she has not borrowed any amount from the complainant and he has no capacity to lend the amount. PW.1 in the beginning of the chief examination has stated that the accused borrowed the amount on 26.10.1998 and subsequently has stated six months prior to 26.10.1998 and in cross-examination he has deposed that he does not remember as to why he agreed to lend money and actually when he lent the money to the accused and his evidence is inconsistent with regard to date on which the amount was lent to the accused. The complainant as PW.1 has stated that he retired from service in the month of April, 1995 and according to him after one year he has received the retirement benefits and from the date of his retirement till he lent the money to the accused, he kept the money with him in the hands. According to him the amount was lent to the accused in the month of April or October, 1998 and there is a gap of nearly two years in lending the amount to the accused and according to the complainant he kept the said amount in his house for all these two years. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved said version of keeping such a huge amount without investing the same in his house. PW.1 further deposed that the accused has executed a bond on her own hand- writing after receiving the said amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and in the cross- examination he has deposed that the said bond was returned by the complainant one week or ten days prior to the issuing Ex.P-1 cheque. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved that version as no prudent man would return the bond executed by the borrower without obtaining the cheque in lieu of said bond and more particularly when there is a dispute with regard to the property between the accused and her daughter as per paper publication made in Vaartha newspaper. According to PW.3 P.Dharma Reddy, he has gone to the house of the accused along with the complainant and in his presence the accused has issued the said cheque to the complainant but he could not state about the location of the house or identity of the house of the accused. The accused has got marked Ex.D-2 a letter written by her to the bank requesting stop payment of the disputed cheque stating that she has issued two blank cheques bearing No.384351 (marked as Ex.P-1) and No.132958 to Ushodaya Finance Company and she had no liability to the said firm and in the event of presentation of the said cheque for encashment, the payment may be stopped. Admittedly, the said letter was addressed to the State Bank of Hyderabad on 08.10.1998 and the same was acknowledged by the said bank. The said letter was addressed by the accused to the said bank much prior to the date of issuing the cheque Ex.P-1. PW.1 admitted that he himself scribed the contents of Ex.P-1 cheque. Admittedly, the accused was working as a teacher as on that date and if really she has issued a cheque for Rs.1,90,000/- she would have written the blanks in the said cheque with her own hand writing. Thus, the complainant has scribed the same in his hand- writing supports the contention of the accused that she issued two blank cheques in favour of Ushodaya Finance Company. The above circumstances create a doubt with regard to lending of the money by PW.1 to the accused and the accused issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. Thus, the accused by relying upon the evidence produced by the complainant could able to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by preponderance of possibilities. Thus, the trial Court has rightly held that the complainant has failed to establish the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and rightly dismissed the complaint basing on the material available on record. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2005 17-08-2012 R.Indrasena Reddy, M.Prabhavathi and another. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Nageshwara Rao, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri V.Ramachander Goud, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2009) 1 SCC 492 2. … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 