4 Mohanish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: With the consent of the parties, heard finally. The applicant has filed the present M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of F.I.R. No.55/2020 registered at Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, District - Indore for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and final report dated 21.04.2020 and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. Full Article
4 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pichhore Thr. vs Mukesh Kumar Bhatt on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: APPEARANCE: Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024} 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24- 03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under: Full Article
4 Dr Kali Charna Sabat vs U O I Through National Institute Of ... on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.05.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard. 2 W.P. No.10021-2024 Full Article
4 Keshav Murari vs Praveen Kumar on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- "7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Narmadapuram, in Case No. 132/Appeal/2024-2025. 7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to get mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of registered will dated 02-05-2011. 7.3. Any other writ/direction deem fit and proper and fact and circumstance of the case. Full Article
4 Sanjeev Kumar Thiwari vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC. Full Article
4 John P.V vs Lovely Jacob on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: ~~~~~~~~~ The petitioners are depositors of the Kadanad Service Co-operative Bank Limited. Respondents 2 and 3 were the former President and Vice President of the Bank. Respondents 4 to 13 were former Committee Members. The 1 st respondent is the Secretary of the Bank. 2. The petitioners state that though the Fixed Deposits of the petitioners are matured long back, those deposits are not paid back. Respondents 1 to 13 committed grave offences. They cheated the Banks and its depositors. Huge loans were given to their own men creating false records and documents. Those loans are now irrecoverable. Ext.P1 inquiry report under 2024:KER:82916 Section 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 would prove the misappropriation and forgery. Full Article
4 Asif Ahmed @ Munna vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all proceedings against them. 2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 8 in S.C.No.1346/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.1593/2018 of Poojappura Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202, 294(b), 506(ii), 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainant and the injured witness. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, on 03.09.2018, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly after abusing the defacto complainant and the third respondent, assaulted them, inflicted grievous injuries, and thereby committed the offences alleged. Full Article
4 Sabith vs Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: [WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows; Full Article
4 Najeeb Rahman vs Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: [WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows; Full Article
4 Rajkumar.G vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 The petitioner, an Inspector attached to the Parassala Police Station, at the time of filing the Writ Petition, was the sole accused in V.C.No.2/2015 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (V.A.C.B.), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, which accepted the refer report preferred in the Vigilance Case above-referred, but directed an enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Heard Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records. Full Article
4 Mohammed Valappil vs Additional Commissioner Of Customs on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: [WP(C) Nos.26883/2024, 38022/2024, 38213/2024, 38235/2024 & 38427/2024] The issue raised in these writ petitions are covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India and others; (2022) 14 SCC 152. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that after the amendment of Section 129 E of Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 06-08-2014 it is a provision beneficial to the persons who propose to file an appeal (like the petitioners herein) and only requires deposit of a portion of the demand. On a consideration of the provision is substituted with effect from 06-08-2024 and on considering the question as to whether such provision will cause undue hardship, it was held as follows; Full Article
4 R.Bhadra Kumar vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: ----------------------------------------------------------- and ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 JUDGMENT/ORDER P.G.Ajithkumar, J. W.P.(C)No.30142 of 2023: Travancore Devaswom Board has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent Inspector General of Registration to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 complaint dated 20.02.2023 made by the Devaswom Commissioner demanding cancellation of registration of deed No.1715/2015 with regard to the property having an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.200/20 in Karode Village. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs. Full Article
4 M/S.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co.(P) vs P.R.Balakrishnan on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1 .R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN RAO P PARTNER, M/S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, WOODLAND JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-16. 2 /S.WOODLANDS JEWELLERS, M KOCHI-16. 3 TATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 1 & R2 BY ADVS. R SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA C. THIS CRIMINAL APPEALHAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 2 2024:KER:82742 "CR" J U D G M E N T The complainant in CC No.238 of 2002 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, filed this appeal challenging acquittal of the accused, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the NI Act'), as per judgment dated 31.05.2007. 2. The complainant, M/s.Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company,isaPrivateLimitedcompanyhavingitsregistered office at Chennai and a branch office at MG Road, Ernakulam. The complainant is represented by its power of attorney holder, who is the Assistant Manager of that company.Heisempoweredtoinstitutethecomplaintandto give evidence. The 2nd accused is M/s.Woodlands Jewellers and the1staccusedisitspartner.Rs.2,13,000/-wasdueto the complainant, from the accused, towards future instalments of kuri transactions, whichthe2ndaccusedhad subscribed with the complainant-company. Towards dischargeofthatdebt,the1staccusedissuedExt.P2cheque dated 14.12.2001, assuring that, it would be encashed on CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 3 2024:KER:82742 presentation before the Bank. The complainant presented that cheque for collection but it was dishonoured for the reason, 'A/c transferred to suit file. No Balance.', as per Ext.P3 memo. Complainant sent Ext.P5 registered lawyer notice to the accused, and inspiteofreceiptofnotice,they did not repay that amount, though a reply was sent with untenable contentions. Hence the complaint. 3. After taking cognizance and on appearance of the accused before the trial court, particulars of offence were read over and explained, to which, they pleaded not guilty andclaimedtobetried.Thereupon,PW1wasexaminedand Exts.P1toP10andP10(a)weremarkedfromthesideofthe complainant. On closure of complainant's evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence and according to them, they subscribed chitty conducted by the complainant, which was terminated on 12.11.1998. They paid the entire amount due, and thereafter their passbook was closed. Ext.P2 cheque was CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 4 2024:KER:82742 given by the accused, as a blank one, only as a security, when he bid the chitty. After closing the chitty,theaccused demanded back the blank cheque given as security, but it was not returned, saying that it was kept intheheadoffice at Madras. No defence evidence was adduced. 4.Onanalysingthefactsandevidence,andonhearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the complaint was not properly instituted, as PW1-Assistant Manager was not properly authorised to filethecomplaintortogiveevidence on behalf of the company. Moreover, the complainant failed to prove that, Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for theappellantandlearned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, since the complainant is a Private Limited company, which is an incorporeal body, only an employee or CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 5 2024:KER:82742 representativeofthecompanycanpreferthecomplaint.The company becomes a de jure complainant and its employee or other representative representing the company in the criminalproceedingsbecomesthedefactocomplainant.Ina complaint, with regard to dishonour of a cheque issued in favour of a company, for the purpose of Section 142 of the NI Act, the company will be the complainant, and for the purpose of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, its employee,whorepresentsthecompany,willbethedefacto complainant. A company can be represented by an employee, or even by a non-employee authorised and empowered, to represent the company by a resolution or a power of attorney. 7. According to the appellant, Ext.P8 extract of the resolution empowered PW1-Sri.A.T.K.Ajayan, who was the Assistant Manager ofthecompany,tofilethecomplaintand to give evidence. Ext.P8 is the extract from the minutes,of the proceedings of the Board of Directors meeting, held on 14.09.2000, at its corporate office at Chennai, which CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 6 2024:KER:82742 authorisedtheAssistantManagerSri.A.T.K.Ajayan,todothe following acts: '( 1) Toinstitute,commence,prosecute,carryonor defend any suit or legal proceeding, (2)Tosignandverifyallplaints,writtenstatements and other pleadings, applications, affidavits, petitions or documents and produce them before any Court, (3) To appoint, engage and instruct any solicitor, Advocate or Advocates to act and plead and other wise conduct the case on behalf of the Company and to sign any Vakalathnama or other authority in this regard, (4) To give evidence on behalf of the Company in any Court of law, and (5) To do all other lawful acts,deedsandthingsin connectionwithfilingofanysuitandconducting anylegalproceedingsinanycourtoflawandto withdraw the case on behalf of the Company.' CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 7 2024:KER:82742 8. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would contendthat,Ext.P8extractoftheminutesisnotadmissible in evidence and the minutes has to beprovedbyproducing theoriginal.HewouldrelyonadecisionoftheHighCourtof Judicature at Bombay in Ashish C. Shah v. M/s. Sheth DevelopersPvt.Ltd.&Othersreportedin[CDJ2011BHC 339:2011 KHC 6506], to say that, Section 194 of the Companies Act provides that, the minutes of meetings kept in accordance with the provisions of Section 193, shall be evidence of the proceedings recorded therein. No provision intheCompaniesActwasbroughttothenoticeofthatcourt which provides that, certifiedcopyorextractoftheminutes would be admissible in evidence, without proof of the original. Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act provides that, secondary evidence may be given, of the existence, conditionandcontentsofthedocument,whentheoriginalis the document, of which a certified copy is permitted bythe Evidence Act or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence. He would rely on another decisionofthe CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 8 2024:KER:82742 Delhi High Court in Escorts Ltd. v.SaiAutosandOthers [1991 Company Cases Volume 72 Page 483] to say that, copy of resolution was not enough and the original of the minutes book, containing the resolution reliedon,hastobe brought to the court. 9. Section 119 of the Companies Act, 2013 which correspondstoSection196oftheCompaniesAct,1956says that,thebookscontainingtheminutesoftheproceedingsof any generalmeetingofacompanyorofaresolutionpassed by postal ballot shall be kept at the registered office of the company,anditshallbeopenforinspectionbyanymember during business hours and if any member make a request, for a copy of the minutes,itshallbefurnishedwithinseven days, onpaymentofprescribedfees.So,Section119ofthe Companies Act provides for copy of the minutes, and moreover, learned counsel for the appellant would saythat, copy of every resolution shall be sent to the Registrar for recording the same within 30 days of passing the same. Moreover, as per Section 54 of the Companies Act, 1956, a CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 9 2024:KER:82742 document which requires authentication by a company may be signed by adirector,themanager,thesecretaryorother authorisedofficerofthecompany,andneednotbeunderits common seal. So, accordingtotheappellant,Ext.P8extract oftheminutes,whichcontainstheresolutionauthorisingthe Assistant Manager to file criminal or civil cases or to give evidenceetc.,signedbythedirectorofSreeGokulamChit& Finance Co.(P)Ltd.,wassufficientauthorityforPW1,tofile the complaint and to give evidence, on behalf of the company. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would point outthat,Ext.P8wasnotproducedalongwiththecomplaint, and it was produced subsequently after questioning the accusedunderSection313ofCr.P.C.Relyingonthedecision M. M. T. C. Ltd. v. Medchil Chemicals And Pharma (P) Ltd. [2002 KHC 241], learned counsel for the appellant contended that, even if there was no authority initially, still thecompanycanrectifythatdefect,atanystage.Inpara12 of that judgment, we read thus: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 10 2024:KER:82742 "It has been held that if a complaint is madeinthe name of an incorporeal person (like a company or corporation) it is necessary that a natural person representssuchjuristicpersoninthecourt.Itisheld that the court looks upon the natural person to be the complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that when the complainant is a body corporate it is the de jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a human being as defactocomplainantto represent the former in court proceedings. It has further been held thatnoMagistrateshallinsistthat theparticularperson,whosestatementwastakenon oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant companytoseekpermissionofthe court for sending any other person to represent the company in the court. Thus, even presuming, that initially there was no authority, still the company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaintscouldthusnothavebeenquashedonthis ground." 11. In the decision, Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia and Another[2 021 (6) CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 11 2024:KER:82742 KHC 368], Hon'ble Apex Court held that, even if there was no authority initially, the company can at any stage rectify that defect by sending a competent person. In that case, copy of the board resolution was filed along with the complaint. An affidavit was brought on record by the company, affirming the factum of authorisation in favour of the Managing Director. Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the copy of board resolution, to find thattheManagingDirector was authorised to file complaint in the Court and to attend all such affairs which maybeneededintheprocessoflegal actions. Paragraphs 23 and 24 of that judgment read thus: "2 3. It is also relevant to note that a copy of the Board Resolutionwasfiledalongwiththecomplaint.Anaffidavit had been brought on record in the Trial Court by the Company, affirming to the factum of authorisation in favouroftheManagingDirector.AManageroraManaging Directorordinarilybytheverynomenclaturecanbetaken tobethepersonin-chargeoftheaffairsCompanyforits day - to - daymanagementandwithintheactivitywould certainlybecallingtheactofapproachingtheCourteither under civil law or criminal law for setting the trial in motion (Credential Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 1998(3)MahL J805).Itwouldbetootechnicalaviewto take to defeat the complaint merely because the bodyof CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 12 2024:KER:82742 the complaint does not elaborate upon the authorisation. The artificial person being the Company had to act through a person / official, which logically would include the Chairman or ManagingDirector.Onlytheexistenceof authorisation could be verified. 24.Whileweturntotheauthorisationinthepresentcase, itwasacopyand,thus,doesnothavetobesignedbythe BoardMembers,asthatwouldformapartoftheminutes of the Board meeting and not a true copy of the authorisation. We also feel that it has been wrongly concludedthattheManagingDirectorwasnotauthorised. If we peruse the authorisation in the form of a certified copyoftheResolution,itstatesthatlegalactionhastobe taken against the respondent for dishonour of cheques issued by him to discharge his liabilitiestotheCompany. To this effect, Mr. Bhupesh Rathod / Sashikant Ganekar were authorised to appoint advocates, issue notices through advocate, file complaint, verifications on oath, appointConstituentattorneytofilecomplaintintheCourt and attend all such affairs which may be needed in the process of legal actions. What more could be said?" 12. Obviously Hon'bleApexCourtacceptedcopyofthe resolutiontofindthefactumofauthorisationinfavourofthe Managing Director. 13.Inthecaseonhand,PW1-AssistantManagerofthe complainant-companyfiledthecomplaintandgaveevidence CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 13 2024:KER:82742 on behalf of the company. Ext.P8 extract of the minutes shows that, the board of directors authorised him to do so. Thefactthatonlyextractoftheminutesbookwasproduced, without producing the original, or that Ext.P8 wasproduced at a belated stage, etc., will not take away that right from him. So, he could have filed the complaint and given evidence also on behalf of the company, on the strength of the resolution by the boardofdirectors,anextractofwhich was produced as Ext.P8. 14.Learnedcounselfortherespondentswouldcontend that, Ext.P9 power of attorney was not executed or authenticated by theNotaryPublicandso,itcouldnothave been accepted to draw power for PW1, tofilethecomplaint or to give evidence. According to him, the two ingredients contained in Section 85 of the Evidence Act viz. execution before the Notary Public and the authentication by the Notary Public are very essential. The words 'executed before', and 'authenticated by', are the two conditionstobe satisfied in order to attract the presumption under Section CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 14 2024:KER:82742 85 of the Evidence Act.HewouldrelyonthedecisionBank of India v. M/s. Allibhoy Mohammed and Others reported in [AIR 2008 BOMBAY 81], to support his argument.Inparagraph 18 of that judgment, we read thus: "18. Let me turn to the Legal Provisions; namely, Section 85 of the Evidence Act which lays down that the Court shall presume due execution and authentication of power of attorney when executed before, and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Counsel or it's Vice Counsel or representative of theCentralGovernment, etc. This presumption is available in favour of the originalPowerofAttorneyholderprovidedmandateof Section 85 is duly followed." 15. In the case on hand, though the original power of attorneyisproducedandmarkedasExt.P9,itdoesnotshow that it was executed by the complainant in presence of the Notary Public, and there is no authentication by the Notary Public, that it was executed before her. So, there is some forceintheargumentputforwardbylearnedcounselforthe respondents, that Ext.P9 power of attorney cannot be accepted,forwantofproperexecutionandauthenticationas CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 15 2024:KER:82742 envisaged under Section 85 of the Evidence Act. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that,evenifthepowerofattorneyisignored,thenalso,the complaint is filed by an officer of the company and he was authorised as per board resolution dated 14.09.2000, the extract of which was marked as Ext.P8. So, this Court is of the view that, though Ext.P9 power of attorney was not liable to be accepted, being the officer of the company, authorised by board resolution dated 14.09.2000, PW1 was empowered to file the complaint and to give evidence. 17.Learnedcounselfortheappellantwouldsaythat,if the accused was disputing the authority of the complainant tofilethecomplaintortogiveevidence,itwasopenforhim to dispute andestablishthesameduringthecourseoftrial. Hon'ble Apex Court in TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. (M/s.) v. M/s. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. and Another [2022 (2) KHC 157:2022 (1) KLT OnLine 1043 (SC)] made that position clear, by holding that, when thecomplainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 16 2024:KER:82742 company. Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and to issue process. If at all there is any serious dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized, or if it is to bedemonstratedthatapersonwho filed the complaint has noknowledgeofthetransactionand assuchthatpersoncouldnothaveinstitutedandprosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused to dispute thepositionandestablishthesameduringthecourseofthe trial. 18. Though the respondents were disputing the authority of PW1, vide Ext.P8 extract of the resolution as wellasExt.P9powerofattorney,theydidnottakeanysteps to establish that position, during trial.So,thefindingofthe trialcourt,thatPW1wasnotauthorizedtofilethecomplaint and to give evidence on the basis of Ext.P8 extract of the resolution, is liable to be set aside. 19.Comingtothefactsofthecase,learnedcounselfor theappellantwouldsubmitthat,therespondentssubscribed CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 17 2024:KER:82742 seven kuries of Rs.5,00,000/- each, with the appellant company, andtheyauctionedthatkurion14.02.1997.They defaulted payment of future instalments, and towards discharge of that liability, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 14.12.2001 for an amount of Rs.2,13,000/-. When that cheque was presented before Bank, it was returned dishonoured for the reason 'A/c transferred to suit file. No balance.' The respondents are not disputing the signatureinExt.P2chequeortheissuanceofthatchequeto the appellant. All statutory formalities to bring home an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act was complied with. Moreover, the presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act will come to the aid of the appellant to show that, Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. So, according totheappellant,learnedtrialcourtwentwrongin acquitting the accused. 20. The respondents would contend that, when they auctioned the kuri with the appellant, as a security for the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 18 2024:KER:82742 balance instalments, Ext.P2 cheque was given as a blank signed cheque, and even after they paid the future instalments fully, and closed the kuri, the blank cheque entrustedwiththeappellantwasnotreturned. Onlytosee, whether they could extract some more money from the respondents, they filed a false complaint, misusing that blank cheque. 21.RelyingonthedecisionoftheHon'bleApexCourtin Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar[(2019) 4 SCC 197], learned counsel for the appellant would argue that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntary signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumptionunderSection139oftheNIAct,intheabsence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. Paragraphs 33 to 36 of that judgment read thus: "33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payeeremainsliableunlessheadducesevidencetorebut CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 19 2024:KER:82742 the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 34.Ifasignedblankchequeisvoluntarilypresentedtoa payee,towardssomepayment,thepayeemayfillupthe amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accusedtoprovethatthechequewasnotindischargeof a debt or liability by adducing evidence. 35.Itisnotthecaseoftherespondent-accusedthathe either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor isitthecaseoftherespondent- accused thattheunfilledsignedchequehadbeenstolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payeeofachequeanditsdrawer,wouldnotdisentitlethe payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139oftheNegotiableInstrumentsAct,intheabsenceof evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion.The second question is also answered in the negative. 36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct,intheabsenceofany cogent evidence to showthatthechequewasnotissued in discharge of a debt." CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 20 2024:KER:82742 22. The respondents are not disputing issuance of Ext.P2chequetotheappellant,thoughaccordingtothem,it wasissuedasablanksignedcheque.Theyarenotdisputing the fact that they auctioned the kuri which they subscribed with the appellant and future instalments were to be paid, evenafterauctioningthekuri.Obviously,Ext.P2chequewas issuednotunderanythreatorcoercion,andevenaccording totherespondents,itwasissuedasasecurityforthefuture instalmentstobepaidinthekuri,whichtheyhadauctioned. In Moideen v. Johny [2006 KHC 1055], this Court held that, even if a blank cheque was issued as a security, the person in possession of the blank cheque, can enter the amount of the liability and present it to the bank. When a blank cheque is issued by one to another, it gives an authority on the person, to whom itisissued,tofillitupat the appropriate stage, with the necessaryentitiesregarding the liability, and to present it to the bank. In the event of dishonour of that cheque, the accused cannot be absolved from his liability. CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 21 2024:KER:82742 23.Anothercontentiontakenupbylearnedcounselfor the respondents is that, the appellant did not produce the account books of the chitty to show that Rs.2,13,000/-was due from them. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, production of account books etc. may be relevant in a civil court, but as far as a criminalcaseunder Section138oftheNIActisconcerned,thereispresumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, and so the burden is upon the respondentstorebutthatpresumption.Shewould rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex CourtinChandelD. K.v.M/s.WockhardtLtd.andAnother[2020KHC6204] which says that production of the account books/cash book may be relevant in a civil court; but may not be so, in the criminal case filed under Section 138 of NI Act, because of the presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque. 24. The respondents are not disputing the fact that they had subscribed kuries with the appellant company. Ext.D1 passbook shows that the kuri commenced on 12.11.1996, and it was terminated on 12.11.1998. In the CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 22 2024:KER:82742 first page of that passbook, a 'PAID' seal is found with the date14.02.1997.Accordingtotheappellant,itwasthedate onwhichthatkuriwasauctionedbytherespondents. Inthe 10th page of that passbook,thereisanendorsementinred ink, as 'c losed 14.12.1998'. So according to the respondents, the endorsement 'c losed 14.12.1998' andthe 'PAID' seal on the first pageofthepassbook,willshowthat he had paid the entire amount due under that kuri and so, no amount was due, so as to issue Ext.P2 cheque. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that,ifthekuriwasclosedon14.12.1998,thepassbookwill show the seal 'c losed', just like the 'PAID' seal in the first page. Since the kuri was auctioned by the respondents, definitely there would have been future instalments, to be paid monthly, till the termination of that kuri. When the respondents are alleging discharge of the entire kuri instalments duetotheappellant,itistheirburden,toprove itwithcogentevidence.Theycouldhaveverywellcalledfor the Registers pertaining to the kuri to show that the entire CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 23 2024:KER:82742 amount has been paid by them. Learned counsel for the appellant would say that, since Ext.D1 passbook was in the custody of the respondents, they themselves might have made the red ink entry 'c losed 14.12.1998'. Since Ext.D1 passbook was with the respondents, the manipulation as alleged by the appellant cannot be ruled out. Learned trial court seems to have been carried away by the 'PAID' seal seen on the first page of Ext.D1 passbook to find that, the entire dues of the kuri was paid off by the respondents. Obviously, that 'PAID' seal was regarding payment by the company, when the kuri was auctioned by the respondents. 26.Learnedcounselfortherespondentswouldcontend that, on receipt of Ext.P5 lawyer notice, they sent Ext.D2 reply notice disowning theliabilityanddisputingissuanceof the cheque. But the appellant produced Ext.P10 notice sent by the respondents on receipt of Ext.P5 notice. In Ext.P10 notice, it was stated that the respondents were facing financial difficulties and they were making every effort to raise funds to settle the account. But, learned counsel for CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 24 2024:KER:82742 the respondents would say that, they never sent Ext.P10 replynoticetotheappellant.ButExt.P10(a)postalcoverwill show that, it was sent by the respondents to Adv.Sri.K.S.Babu, who sent Ext.P5 notice. Ext.D2 notice as well as Ext.P10noticeareonthesamedayi.e.10.01.2002. But Ext.D2 was addressed to the appellant directly. The postalreceiptoracknowledgementcardofExt.D2noticewas not produced by the respondents. Since Ext.P5 notice was sent by an advocate, normally the reply also should have been given to that advocate. Ext.P10 notice along with Ext.P10(a) cover seem to be more reliable. On going through Ext.P10 notice, it could be seen that, the respondents were admitting their liability to certain extent, towards the balance amount due on prized chits. 27.Advertingtotheaforesaidfactsandcircumstances, this Court is of the view that, the trial court went wrong in acquitting the accused. So,theimpugnedjudgmentisliable to be set aside. There is evidence to show that Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 25 2024:KER:82742 enforceable debt, and that cheque was dishonoured for the reason'A/ctransferredtosuitfile.Nobalance.'Theappellant had complied with all the statutory formalities in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.ThecomplainantwasauthorizedasperExt.P8extractof the resolution, to file the complaint and to give evidence. The respondents failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the appellant, under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. So, respondents 1 and 2 are found guiltyunder Section 138 of the NI Act. 28. As per Section 141 of the NI Act, if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Section 141(2) of the NI Act reads thus: CRL.A NO. 1029 OF 2008 26 2024:KER:82742 "141. Offences by companies. -- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinsub-section(1), where any offence under thisAct,hasbeencommittedby a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation: For the purposes, of this section,-- (a) "company"meansanybodycorporateandincludesa firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm." 29. In the case on hand, the 2nd respondent is a partnership firm and the 1st res Full Article
4 Sabah Rahman vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: This application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/accused in S.C.No.561 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri. He has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 A (2) read with Section 354 A (1)(i), 363 of IPC, and Section 8 read with Section 7 of the PoCSO Act. He has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The maximum period of imprisonment he will have to undergo is 4 years. Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & 2. The application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor. Full Article
4 Reji vs The State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: In this Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (`Cr.P.C' for short) the sole accused in S.C.No.280/2016 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences relating to atrocities against Women and Children including Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (`POCSO') Cases, Alappuzha, impugns order in Crl.M.P.No.975/2022 dated 12.04.2022. 2. When this matter came up for admission on 19.04.2022, this Court stayed the proceedings in S.C.No.280/2016 till 18.05.2022 and thereafter stay has been extended periodically. 3. As on 16.10.2024, the learned Special Judge sent a 2024:KER:83133 letter to this Court as directed by the committee of this Court to monitor and regulate the process of trials under the POCSO Act stating that this case comes under the 5+ year old category and that all further proceedings in this case have been stayed by this Court and is one among the pending oldest cases before the Special Court. Full Article
4 Bhagavan Ram D Patel vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 8 th accused in Crime No.1360/2024 of the Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had during the period from September 2023 to 13.05.2024 induced the defacto complainant to make investments in their companies named 'INVESCO CAPITAL' and 'GOLDMANS SACHS'. Accordingly the defacto 2024:KER:83459 complainant invested Rs.7,65,00,000/- by transferring the amount from his and his wife's joint account believing that he would receive Rs.39,72,85,929/-. However, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. Full Article
4 Noushad Khan vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the 1st accused in Crime No.796/2024 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 08.09.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on 11.06.2024, at 11:45 hours, the accused 1 to 3 had pledged spurious gold ornaments, weighing 16.150 grams, with the defacto complainant and received Rs.69,000/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. Full Article
4 Sanesh vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No. 882/2024 of the Thrissur West Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 342, 294(b), 506, 323, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2024. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; one day between 10 and 15th of May 2023, the accused wrongfully confined the survivor in a class room at Thrissur Kerala Varma College, and after causing hurt to her, he undressed and committed rape on her. The accused also uttered obscene words and intimidated the survivor, saying that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would murder her. Thus, the accused has 2024:KER:83438 committed the above offences. Full Article
4 Lineesh T B vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The application is filed under Sec.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, 'BNSS') by the 4th accused in Crime No.376/2024 of the Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against six accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii) (A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act') and Section 6(b) r/w Section 24 of the COTPA Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2024 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the accused 1 to 6 had hatched a conspiracy to procure narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance to make illegal profit. Accordingly, the 1st accused received Rs.1,50,000/- from the 5th accused and went in a car BAIL APPL. NO. 6026 OF 2024 2024:KER:83332 bearing registration No.KL-07-CA-4056 to Bangalore and purchased 180 grams of MDMA from the 6 th accused. After the accused 1 to 3 returned back to Kerala with the contraband article, they handed over 80 grams of MDMA to the 4th accused. They also proposed to give 100 grams of MDMA to the 5 th accused for the money he paid the 1st accused. While the 1st accused was traveling in the car with 100 grams of MDMA, 4 grams of ganja and Hans, to hand over the same to the 5th accused, the Detecting Officer intercepted the vehicle at Maradu, Ernakulam and seized 101.09 grams of MDMA from the car. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. Full Article
4 Santhosh @ Kalyani Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1900/2024 & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1905/2024 These applications under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicants/accused persons in S.C.No.1313 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Session, Kollam. The accused persons11 in number have been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. They have been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for the aforesaid offences. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore the maximum period of imprisonment they will have to undergo is five years. Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl.M.Appl. No.1 of 2024 in & Crl. Appeal Nos.1900 & 1905 of 2024 Full Article
4 Sano M. Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the first accused in Crime No. 690/2024 of the Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 354 A, 354 B and 506(1) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 3(a), 4(1), 6, 5(1), 11(ii) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short, 'the POCSO Act'), 2012. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2024. Full Article
4 Xxxxxx vs Union Of India on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Nitin Jamdar, C. J. This appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is filed by the Original Petitioner, challenging the judgment and order issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 37000 of 2024, dated 30 October 2024. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the Petitioner's request, the mother of the minor survivor girl, to medically terminate her pregnancy. 2. The petitioner is the mother of a 16-year-old school-going girl. She has been subjected to repeated sexual assault. A crime has been registered at the police station under Sections 354, 354A(2), 354B, 376, 376(2) (n), 376(3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 4(1), (2) read with Sections 3(a), 6 read with 5(j)(ii), (1), 8 read with 7, and 12 read with 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Neither the minor nor her mother was aware of the pregnancy until a Gynaecologist confirmed it. By that time, the foetus had reached a gestational age of 25 weeks and 6 days, and it was not possible to medically terminate the pregnancy without intervention of the Court. Full Article
4 Aakarsh vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Dated this the 08th day of November, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023('BNSS', for the sake of brevity), by the third accused in Crime No.1231/2024 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against four accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 29 & 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act'). The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 01.08.2024. 2. The concise case of the prosecution, is that: on 22.07.2024, at around 04:20 hours, the first accused was found in conscious possession of 45 grams of MDMA. He was arrested on the spot with the contraband article. During the course of the investigation and interrogation of the first accused, it 2024:KER:83250 was revealed that it was the fourth accused who had given financial assistance to the first accused. The accused Nos.2 & 3 are also involved in the case. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. Full Article
4 K. Mohammed Ali vs Chinnamma K.M on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: KOCHUVEETHIL HOUSE, ERANZHIPALAM PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031 BY ADVS. MADHAVANUNNI V T LEO LUKOSE(K/001131/2016) T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001) VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN(K/000197/1983) B.G HARINDRANATH(SR.) SRI. RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADV.ALEX JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2024, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2024:KER:83495 CRL.MC NO. 3248 OF 2023 CR ORDE R Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 complaint in C.C.No.2/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 13 in the above case. Full Article
4 K.P. Credit And Traders Pvt Ltd vs Anurag Rungta on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court:- This appeal is arising out of an order rejecting an application for judgment upon admission filed under Order 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This order is not appealable in terms of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly conceded that the appeal is not maintainable. Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The original certified copy shall be returned to the appellant by the Department concerned after retaining a photocopy of the same in order to enable the appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. (SOUMEN SEN, J.) (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) mg Full Article
4 Umc Technologies P Ltd vs Assistant Director Of Postal Services ... on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court: As a last chance, the time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extended upto 30th November, 2024. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within 8th December, 2024. Let this matter appear in the list on 11th December, 2024. The time mentioned is peremptory. (SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) B.Pal Full Article
4 Blue Star Limited vs Shriram Epc Limited on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: reasonable time. The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding. Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter. Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it. Full Article
4 Blue Star Limited vs Shriram Epc Limited on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: reasonable time. The allegation against the respondent is that the respondent has not cooperated with the learned Arbitrator during the proceeding. Learned Advocate for the respondent denies such allegation and submits that an affidavit is required to be filed in this matter. Considering the fact that the arbitration proceeding is on the verge of completion, the allegations levelled against the respondent are irrelevant in the present context as justice would be subserved if the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of six months, to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding and make and publish the award. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations against the respondent are deemed to have been denied by it. Full Article
4 Aaryan Projects Private Limited vs Klowin Infrastructure Private Limited on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court: We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 25th April, 2023, the appeal was admitted and all further proceedings in the suit including the hearing of the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pending before the learned Trial Court was initially stayed for eight weeks and thereafter the said interim order was extended from time to time. 2 We feel that the appeal is required to be heard and we do not find any reason to vacate the interim order at this stage. The interim order passed on 25th April, 2023 is confirmed. The applications stand disposed of. The appeal shall be listed on 25th November, 2024. Full Article
4 Food Corporation Of India And Ors vs Kothari Medical Centre on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in WPO/1664/2023 challenging the interim order dated 14.12.2023. By the said interim order the positive direction has been issued to the appellant to disburse the dues to the writ petitioner in terms of the bills for the period other than pertaining to the financial year 2018-19 and also the appellant has been restrained till the disposal of the writ petition from refusing to accept the bills which has been filed by the writ petitioner for the subsequent period including the current years. We find that relief granted to the writ petitioner is in fact the relief which has been prayed for by the writ petitioner in prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. The learned Single Bench was also conscious of the fact that to decide the matter finally affidavits have to be called for and, accordingly, issued appropriate direction. Full Article
4 Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Marina Piling Company Pvt Ltd And Anr on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: It appears that a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated December 5, 2018. An application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") had been preferred before the learned Arbitrator. Two Officers were appointed as Receivers in respect of the subject asset. The Receivers were directed to take physical possession of the said asset being an equipment being XR 220D, bearing engine no.22293605 along with its accessories, as mentioned in the agreement. Pleadings disclose that the Receivers were not able to take physical possession of the asset in question as they were resisted by the respondents and the local police authorities also did not cooperate. Full Article
4 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Indus Realty Pvt. Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court:- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 08, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.666/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error by not considering the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of share capital / share premium of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961, without considering the fact that there is accommodation entry in the instant case? Full Article
4 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Vivekananda Mercantile Pvt. Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: learned advocate on record of the appellant is directed to serve notice of appeal on the respondent in the meantime. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S. Kumar Full Article
4 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court : This is an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging an order dated January 11, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.763/Kol/2022, for the assessment order 2013-14. We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. The appeal was filed beyond time and an application for condonation of delay was filed which was heard and the delay was condoned. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the assessee has been advised to avail the provisions of the direct tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme (VSVS) dated 15 th October, 2023. However, one issue may crop up if the assessee files an application under VSVS by citing that the duty fixed for eligible cases as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(Sl.1)(ii). Identical issue arose for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. Asish Kumar Ghosh, WPA 18282 of 2021 and by judgment dated 1st April, 2022 this Court had considered the very same issue and found that the assessee would be eligible to file a declaration under the provisions of the VSVS and a direction was also issued to process such application. The judgment rendered in Asish Kumar Ghosh will fully support the case of the assessee and therefore the assessee is entitled to file an application under the VSVS. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to file an application and the department shall process the application in accordance with law. Full Article
4 Shib Shankar Rungta Prop Of S S Rungta And ... vs Jai Jute And Industries Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Date: November 8, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Choubey, Adv. Mr. Udit Agarwal, Adv. ... for the plaintiff Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Full Article
4 M/S Micky Metals Limited vs Uttam Biswas on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Affidavit of service is taken on record. This application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 has been filed for an injunction restraining the respondent from operating the bank account being No. 5480011001480 maintained with the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. The petitioner submits that the dispute arises out of a settlement executed between the parties on January 15, 2021. The settlement contains an arbitration clause. It provides that all disputes and differences relating to any previous, present or future and arising out of the transactions, sale or purchase etc. shall be decided by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner submits that pursuant to such settlement, a cheque for an amount of Rs.11,84,856/- dated June 12, 2021 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent. The cheque was dishonoured and the petitioner has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Full Article
4 Meher Foundations And Civil Engineers ... vs Spml Infra Limited (Subhas Projects Amd ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court :The affidavit of service is taken on record. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The petitioner was engaged by the respondent to execute some piling work. The petitioner contends that the work could not be completed as NTPC had stopped the petitioner from carrying out the same on account of certain disputes between NTPC and the respondent. It is submitted that non- payments of the amounts due and other disputes between the petitioner and the respondent could not be resolved as a proceeding was before an arbitrator for resolution of a dispute between NTPC and the respondent. The petitioner claims to have also approached NTPC and were allegedly informed that the claim of the petitioner would be liquidated by the respondent as the money awarded by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and NTPC, had been paid to the respondents.The petitioner had invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent replied to the notice, thereby denying the claim of the petitioner. The respondent suggested the name of a learned Retired Judge to act as the sole arbitrator, in response to the notice invoking arbitration. In reply to such letter, the petitioner suggested the names of three learned Retired Judges. Full Article
4 Mahakali Udyog Private Limited vs Ksa Resources Llp on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The respondent expressed lack of confidence on the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner has pointed out a letter written by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent which, according to the petitioner, was disrespectful to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that the same conduct will be repeated by the respondent's learned Advocate. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, submits that the letter written by the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent was in answer to the contents of the letter written by the petitioner's Advocate. 2 It appears that there were allegations and counter allegations with regard to the conduct of the parties before the learned Arbitrator. The situation was very unfortunate. Full Article
4 Pvt. Ltd vs Department Of Information Technology ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court:- Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate prays for hearing of this application under section11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground that the arbitrability of a dispute should not be decided by this Bench. This issue should also be decided by the learned arbitrator. Mr. Mitra further contends that once there is an arbitration clause and arbitration has been invoked under section 21 of the said Act, all that this court is supposed to do is to appoint an independent person to act as an arbitrator. 2 Mr. Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent opposes such prayer and submits that the order passed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of Mr. Mitra's client, has been challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Mr. Sinha has produced an order dated 15th April, 2024 passed in the appeal preferred by the respondent. The question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute has been raised. The Hon'ble Division Bench had observed that it would be up to the learned single judge whether to decide the question or to adjourn the proceedings, in order to enable the Division Bench to proceed. Mr. Sinha submits that the erstwhile Single Bench had adjourned this matter, on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble appeal Court. Full Article
4 Birla Corporation Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court:- This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated January 16, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1964/Kol/2019 and C.O. No.39/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the invocation of sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of appellant, the appellant's claim that expenditure of Rs.9,77,888/ was incurred in relation to the exempt income was not correct? Full Article
4 Mstc Limited vs Sesa International Limited on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court: Liberty is granted to the advocate-on-record for the claimant to correct the description of the application in the cause title. By communication dated September 3, 2024, learned sole arbitrator appointed by the court informed the parties that he had resigned from the matter. He thus refused to act as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute arbitrator. 2 Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the respondent had filed a suit. An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act,) is also pending before the learned Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner. As such, this Court must refrain from appointing an arbitrator as the issues involved in the suit are yet to be decided and the application under Section 8 of the said Act has been filed with similar prayers. Full Article
4 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Gpt Sons Pvt Ltd on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court :- We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/491/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- a. Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in granting relief to the assessee without considering the fact that neither the assessee nor the amalgamating company informed the AO about the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore defect in not issuing notice in the name of amalgamated company remained a curable defect under section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? Full Article
4 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 vs M/S. Delta Dealers Private Limited on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against an order dated October 26, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No.1842/Kol/2017, for the assessment order 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleting the additional made by the A.O. towards unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act by holding that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions overlooking the fact that not even a single Director of the share subscribing companies appeared before the Assessing Officer nor provided a valid reason for their non-appearance? Full Article
4 P C Chanda & Company Private Limited vs Bharat Chemicals & Paints on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Bivas Pattanayak, J. :- 1. The instant execution case has been filed by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant-judgment debtor for execution of a decree dated 24th March, 2021 for a sum of Rs.12,54,607.68/-. 2. In its affidavit in support of tabular statement the decree holder contends that the judgement-debtor holds immovable property namely an office at Golpark Co-operative Housing Society, Flat no. 13/B2, 4th Floor, 49C, Govindapur Road, Lake Gardens (near Jodhpur Market), Kolkata- 2 700068 and operates bank account at UCO Bank, Park Circus Branch, Kolkata-700014. 3. The judgement debtor through its partner filed its affidavit of assets who contends that he possesses the above mentioned flat and the bank account. Full Article
4 Dalli Rani Etc vs M/S Tara Devi Yashpal Singh Distt Una (H ... on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: By way of this order, I intend to dispose off aforesaid-captioned appeals. These appeals involve similar question of law in the background of identical set of facts. 1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145543 other connected cases 2. For brevity, the facts are being culled out from from FAO No.1112 of 1988. 3. Instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 26th of August, 2022 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Phagwara exercising powers as ESI Court under ESI Act, 1948 whereby the petition filed under Section 75-78 of the ESI Act, 1948 by the respondent has been allowed. 4. Recovery certificate under Section 45-A was issued and attachment proceedings were initiated against the respondent through Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Phagwara for recovery of Rs.6690-95 paise. Respondent challenged the demand before ESI Court. It was claimed that the demand raised by the ESI Corporation was based on adhoc assessment without any survey. The demand has been raised w.r.t. 132 KV Sub Station, Phagwara. The same does not fall within the purview of ESI Act as the strength of the staff is only three in number. The staff employed for maintenance like Mali, Sweeper at the Sub Station are on the roles of XEN D/S and not on the roles of KV Sub Station. It was thus claimed that the respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards ESI contribution. Full Article
4 Surender And Anr vs Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak And ... on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Present revision petition is directed against order dated 3rd of May, 2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak whereby application filed by the defendants under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed. 2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the petitioners as the defendants and respondent No.2 as the plaintiff. 1 of 8 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144672 3. Respondent/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that order passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Rohtak Water Services Division, Rohtak, dated 7th of March, 2017 sanctioning water course AB be declared illegal, null, and void. Further prayer was for decree in form of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from digging the water course. Full Article
4 Balwinder Singh Alias Deepa vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 07, dated 07.02.2024, under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudharian, District Kapurthala. 2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:- "Statement of ASI Nirmal Singh 51/Kpt: Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Stated that I was on duty at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Today I alongwith ASI Parvinder Singh 1517/Kpt, ASI Kanwaljit Singh 1539/Kpt were checking vehicles at Hi-tech Naka Bridge Shri Goindwal Sahib P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian District Kapurthala. Then from side of Mundi Maur one motorcycle was seen coming and three persons with cut hair were riding the same. They were signaled to stop on seeing the naka of police they threw the 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146061 motorcycle and tried to run back. The driver of the motorcycle from the pocket of his pant, the person sitting in the middle from the pocket of his pyjama and the person sitting at the end from the pocket of his pant took out one transparent polythene bag and threw the same on the side of the road and therein orange colored tablets were clearly visible. They were apprehended and their names and address was inquired. The driver of the motorcycle disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh @ Deepa son of Swaran Singh R/o village Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting in the middle disclosed his name as Manjit Singh @ Katta son of Vaid Singh Resident of Hamira P.S. Subhanpur. The person sitting at the last disclosed his name as Gurnam Singh @ Gama son of Sewa Singh R/o Phulra P.S. Bhaini Mian Khan District Gurdaspur. I being local rank ASI cannot carry out proceedings under the NDPS Act. Therefore, I had given information at P.S. Talwandi Chaudhrian through phone to send investigating officer. You alongwith police party have reached at the spot. The polythene bags thrown by Balwinder Singh @ Deepa, Manjit Singh @ Katta and Gurnam Singh ® Gama are lying as it is. I have given my statement to you and same is correct." Full Article
4 Dilbagh Singh Etc vs Jasbir Kaur on 7 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: INDEX 1. Challenge in the present Para 1 Page 1-2 appeal 2. Background of the case Paras 2-9 Pages 2-6 3. Arguments on behalf of the Paras 10-13 Pages 6-10 appellants 4. Arguments on behalf of Paras 14-15 Pages 10-12 respondent no.1/plaintiff 5. Analysis and Findings Paras 16-38 Pages 12-25 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL 1. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 11.09.1992 vide which the Ist Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1988 passed by the trial Court and had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent 1 of 25 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145434 RSA-1920-1992 (O&M) [2] No.1 (presently represented by his LRs) for specific performance. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Full Article
4 Dhoop Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: CRM-42163-2024 For the reasons stated in the application coupled with the no objection pleaded by the State counsel, the application is allowed and copy of the judgment of acquittal Annexure A-7 dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind is taken on record. CRA-S-2545-2019 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.04.2019, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the appellant who stood surety for accused Balwinder @ Binder, is directed to pay penalty of Rs.1 lac with further direction that the same be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector concerned. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Balwinder @ Binder who was accused in a criminal case having FIR No.23 dated 21.02.2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 283, 186, 341, 332, 353, 307, 395, 397, 406, 427, 436 and 120- B IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act, Police Station Pillukhera (Uchana) and he was granted bail and appellant stood as his surety in sum of Rs.1 lac. Subsequently, Balwinder @ Binder jumped bail and absconded. Resultantly, notice under Section 446 1 of 3 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144618 CRA-S-2545-2019 [2] Cr.P.C was served upon the appellant and he was imposed penalty of Rs.1 lac vide impugned order dated 11.04.2019. Full Article
4 Rachpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: N.S.Shekhawat J. 1. The petitioner had filed the present petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in a case arising out of FIR No.140, dated 24.05.2021, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 511, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Maqboolpura, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the abovesaid FIR (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was not initially named in the FIR and had no knowledge with regard to the pendency of the proceedings against him. Learned counsel further contends that even the summons/warrants were issued against the petitioner on a wrong address and he was never served in the present case. Even, the 1 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146455 CRM-M-38364-2024 - 2-. Full Article
