advocatemmmohan
Supreme Court India
sec.420 – cheating – agreement of sale – received Rs.50 lakhs – sold parking place kept for a Club House as per municipal records – committed an offence – when there is ample evidence on record to say that accused played fraud on complainant – quashing of complaint is wrong – High court orders are set aside = Ashfaq Ahmed Quereshi & Anr. …Appellants Versus Namrata Chopra & Ors. …Respondents = judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41096
sec.420 – cheating – agreement of sale – received Rs.50 lakhs – sold parking place kept for a Club House as per municipal records – committed an offence – when there is ample evidence on record to say that accused played fraud on complainant – quashing of complaint is wrong – High court orders are … Continue reading
Sec.406 I.P.C.- Criminal breach of Trust – police reported the case as false – protest petition and it’s appeal were dismissed by lower courts – High court in revision set aside the lower courts order and remanded the case finding prima faice offence for next step allowing protest petition – Apex court confirmed the High court order – Complainant clearly deposed that he had handed over gold while purchasing cloth in accused shop and were not returned – accused admitted the same – enough to hold prima faice case against the accused – accused admitted it – burden lies on him to prove non-guilty = Ghanshyam …. Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan …. Respondent = Published in/Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41078
Sec.406 I.P.C.- Criminal breach of Trust – police reported the case as false – protest petition and it’s appeal were dismissed by lower courts – High court in revision set aside the lower courts order and remanded the case finding prima faice offence for next step allowing protest petition – Apex court confirmed the High … Continue reading
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the Corporation’) – Regulation 16(a), (b), (n) read with Regulation 64(b) read with section 46 of the M.R.T.P. Act. – Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for grant of environmental clearance for change of use of land purchased in industrial zone for purpose of raising commercial and residential buildings – Corporation granted permission despite of objections – D.B. High court set aside the orders of Mumbai corporation and also directed to consider afresh taking in to consideration of security threats etc. – Apex court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the high court orders = Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. … Appellant versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others … Respondents = Published in / cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41064
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the Corporation’) – Regulation 16(a), (b), (n) read with Regulation 64(b) read with section 46 of the M.R.T.P. Act. – Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for grant of environmental clearance for change of use of land purchased in industrial zone for purpose of raising commercial and residential buildings – Corporation granted permission despite of objections – D.B. High … Continue reading
Service matter – Appointment for the post of District judge – whether a public prosecutor is eligible for the post of Judiciary – Apex court held yes = Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli & Anr. …..Appellants. Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41050
Service matter – Appointment for the post of District judge – whether a public prosecutor is eligible for the post of Judiciary – Apex court held yes = whether a Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor/District Attorney/Assistant District Attorney/Deputy … Continue reading
Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/ complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the same instead of reject the same as not maintainable under sec.301 Cr. P.C. – When an official Witness who conducted Test Identification parade – Being a Judicial Officer – how can he be permitted to depose in his chief examination contradicting his report/beyond his report which was not found in his record produced – is it not a duty of court or the public prosecutor to cross examine that witness statement made deliberately with out any basis infavour of Accused = Apex court set aside the orders of Lower court and High court and directed the lower court to recall the witness and made specific cross examination about the specific point deposed by him with out any record or beyond his record test identification report and gave an opportunity to file written submissions at the time of arguments = Sister Mina Lalita Baruwa …. Appellant VERSUS State of Orissa and others …. Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41046
Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/ complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the … Continue reading
Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product = The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil from out of the castor seeds purchased by it comes under the jurisdiction of the market area of the APMC and therefore, it is liable for paying the market fees/cess for the trading activities carried out by it in the market area. APMC levied market fee on the castor seeds bought by the Company on the basis that castor seeds were brought within the market area of APMC. = AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ……APPELLANT Versus BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41040
Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product = The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil … Continue reading
Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. …Appellants Versus Northeast Frontier Railway and Ors. …Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41031
Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = invited tenders for the grant of a three year lease of 23 tonnes of space in VPH (Parcel Van) on train No.15960/15959 Kamrup Express. Among those who … Continue reading
Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., – and after cancellation of plot and forfeit of amount, the official liquidator of the company can not lay any rights over the plot which was cancelled by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., as ownership was not transferred = The A.P.I.I. Corpn. Ltd. …..Appellant. Versus M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. (in liquidation) rep. by the Official Liquidator, Hyderabad & Anr. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41026
Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., – and after cancellation of plot and forfeit of amount, the official liquidator of the company can not lay any rights over the plot which was cancelled by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., as ownership was not transferred = … Continue reading
Section 468 of the Cr.P.C – F.B .= Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? = Mrs. Sarah Mathew … Appellant Versus The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director – Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors. … Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40992
Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? … Continue reading
Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High Court staying operation of order of Single Judge and directing the money deposited by plaintiff and appellant with developer to the credit of one of the suits and to be invested in FD – Held: Division Bench of High Court while deciding the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power and jurisdiction in commenting on the conduct of the appellant stating that she approached the court on the basis of false and fabricated documents – When the main suits are pending, particularly, the appellant is a stranger in the pending suits, such observation is not warranted and, as such, is deleted – The developer having deposited the money as directed by High Court, it safeguards the interests of plaintiff – Trial Court directed to decide the suits on merit – Administration of justice – Strictures. = Vasanti Bhat …. Appellant(s) Versus Premlata A Agarwal & Anr. Etc. …. Respondent(s) = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx
INTERIM ORDERS: Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 