hi Khalid Jahangir Qazi Through His Power ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary & Ors. on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: SANJEEV NARULA, J.: 1. Mr. Khalid Jahangir Qazi, a national of United States of America holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India,1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking entry to India. He challenges the legality of two restrictive measures imposed upon him - order dated 12th May, 2023 issued by the Consulate General of India, New York,2 cancelling his OCI card under the Citizenship Act, 1955,3 and the Citizenship Rules, 2009; and a subsequent blacklisting order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Foreigners Act, 1946,4 restraining his entry into India. The underlying basis of these actions, as asserted by the Respondents, is the Petitioner's alleged involvement in activities deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of India. Full Article
hi Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-2 vs National Highway Authority Of India on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612. 2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:- Full Article
hi Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) - 2 vs National Highway Authority Of India, on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) impugns the judgment rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 on 10 April 2017 Tribunal and which has principally held that the capital grant subsidy given by the respondent-assessee to its Concessionaires would not be subject to a withholding tax as contemplated under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612. 2. We had upon hearing learned counsels for respective sides on 19 March 2024 admitted the appeal on the solitary issue of deduction of tax at source. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:- Full Article
hi Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: ANISH DAYAL, J. "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" - Justice V.R Krishna Iyer. These words resonate deeply in the assessment by this Court of the plea of premature release after 26 years of incarceration. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1485/2024 Page 1 of 58 Signing Date:12.11.2024 12:03:39 1. The petitioner seeks directions for setting aside the Minutes of Meeting of the Sentence Review Board ("SRB") held on 30th June 2023 rejecting the premature release of the petitioner and order dated 21 st November 2023 by which the Minutes of SRB were approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi; ("LG"). Petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for premature release in FIR No.48/2001, PS Rajender Nagar for offences under Sections 302/186/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 68 of the Excise Act, 2009. Additionally, the petitioner prays that this Court frames guidelines to ensure that all decisions taken by the SRB are in consonance with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 ("DPR"). Full Article
hi Harsh Vardhan Bansal vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation And ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The instant batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially challenges the recommendations made by the Municipal Valuation Committee-III (hereinafter referred to as 'MVC-III') under Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'DMC Act') which are sought to be implemented to levy property tax by erstwhile East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'EDMC'). EDMC was reunified alongwith other Corporations and is now called the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'). Full Article
hi Niraj Kumar vs Dhiraj Kumar on 7 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Singh, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant on admission. 2. The learned Counsel is referring to document at page 42 of the Original Application which is in Hindi vernacular. The Applicant should have filed the English translation of the said document since the Hon'ble Expert Member sitting at Chennai Bench cannot be expected to read this document. 3. Even otherwise, Rule 33 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices & Procedure) Rules 2011 provides in clear and candid terms that the language of the Tribunal shall be English provided that the parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal may file documents drawn up in Hindi, if they so desire. Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion permit the use of Hindi in the proceedings, and the Tribunal hearing any matter in its discretion direct English translation of pleadings and documents to be filed. Full Article
hi Sudhir Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:45724) on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: [2024:RJ-JD:45724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 13173/2024 Sudhir Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Khairpur, Police Station Bahavwala, District Fazila, Punjab. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024 Full Article
hi Sunil Prajapat vs The Rajasthan High Court ... on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR Order 08/11/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submits that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra and stands concluded vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 12895/2024 (Ajay Meena & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.). The order reads as under:- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent be consider the petitioners for appear in typewriting test on computer who shall be scheduled very soon. Full Article
hi Jashim Uddin Laskar vs The State Of Assam on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 11/11/2024 Heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (New Section 483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jashim Uddin Laskar, son of Late Jalal Uddin Laskar, resident of Village- Barnagad, P.O. Kalibaribazar, P.S. Algapur, District-Hailakandi, seeking bail in Silchar P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/3 1935/2023 registered under Sections 379 IPC (Section New 303 BNS) corresponding to G.R. No. 3650/2023, wherein he was arrested on 11.09.2024 and is in custody since then. Full Article
hi Nikita Shivhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. This criminal appeal (first) under Section 14-(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior, in Bail Application No.2473/2024 whereby the application moved by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.81/2023 registered at Police Station Gwalior District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 346, 363, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected. Full Article
hi Shilpa Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that bail application is filed in name of Shilpa Pathak. He has filed an application (I.A.No.29004/2024) for amendment in record. It is submitted that after marriage name of applicant has been changed to Shilpa Dubey, therefore, he wants to correct the cause title. 2. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, application is allowed. 3. Name of applicant is to be treated as Shilpa Pathak @ Shilpa Dubey. 4. This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.523/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 294, 506, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Full Article
hi 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
hi 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
hi 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
hi 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
hi 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
hi Olive Abuchi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 03.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. It is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been rejected on 05.06.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. Full Article
hi State vs Ram @ Himanshu on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 11.Date on which Order Announced : 12.11.2024. SC No. 464/2021 FIR No. 417/2021 U/s. 307 IPC State Vs. Ram @ Himanshu PS : Badarpur Page No.1 of 31 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: 1. The prosecution case against accused Ram @ Himanshu in brief is that on 11/07/2021, at about 08:30 PM, at Main Market, Gautam Puri, near Valmiki Mandir, within the jurisdiction of PS Badarpur, he caused injuries on forehead and occipital region exposing bone calvaria of victim Dinesh Kumar, with chopper (meat cutting knife). The FIR was registered on the basis of PCR call through GD No.90A and accused Ram @ Himanshu was arrested on 12/07/2021 and, on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s. 307 IPC. Full Article
hi Narinder Gambhir vs Vijay Kumar on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. Sl. No. of the case 10095/2017 2. Date of institution of the case 04.08.2017 3. Name of the Complainant Sh. Narinder Gambhir S/o Kishan Lal Gambhir R/o B-29, Ground Floor, Subhadra Colony, Opposite Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110035. 4. Name of Accused, parentage Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and address R/o D-38, Lalita Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. And Also at: M/s Maha Vashno Electrical Co. Full Article
hi State vs Shishu Pal on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The accused Shishu Pal has faced the present trial for the offence u/s 302 IPC for committing murder of his real brother namely Satyadev by strangulating him with the help of a shoe lace. The case of the prosecution: 2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on receipt of call vide DD No. 31 A dated 15.07.2018, ASI Brahm Swaroop reached Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel (SVBP) Hospital, Patel Nagar where deceased Satyadev was reported to be brought dead. The emergency card of SVBP hospital indicates that he was brought there by the accused. The doctor at the hospital noticed a scar mark on the neck of the deceased. The post mortem report opined that the cause of death as asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. In the subsequent opinion the doctor opined that the death was possible with the alleged weapon of offence i.e shoelace recovered at the instance of the accused. After the post mortem report was received the FIR was registered on 19.07.2018. On the same day the accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. On the next day the IO obtained the police custody of the accused and at the instance of the accused, the shoelace allegedly used in the offence, was recovered from the room situated at the first floor of the house of the accused and the deceased. Pooja, wife of deceased raised her suspicion on the accused as her husband i.e. deceased Satyadev was a habitual drunker due to which there used to be quarrels State Vs Shishu Pal SC No.780/2018 FIR No. 201/2018 2/42 between Satyadev and his elder brother Shishupal. She stated that at the time of incident, she had gone to her parental home at Farukhkabad, U.P. After completion of investigation, t he chargesheet was filed against the accused. Full Article
hi Manish Bhimte vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: : The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking the following information: "1. Whether exclusion of the undersigned in the list of DRMs posting order issued by Railway Board dated 07.03.2023 was on account of a pending major DAR case? If so, on what basis order of the undersigned on deputation to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited vide order no. 2022/E(O)II/6/19 dated 12.09.2022 as Chief Engineer (Rolling Stock) was issued despite pending DAR case Whether Railway Board is following different criteria for DAR clearance for deputation posting) (Please furnish name & designation of authority that gave approval for above Major DAR case? Please furnish name & designation of authority who has gone into this DAR case detail and given any recommendation on case file to make it a fit case for major penalty proceeding?) Full Article
hi ) Laxmidhar Sethi vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 11.11.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the records. 3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioners for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 498-A / 323 / 342 / 506 /307 / 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of D.P. Act in G.R. Case No.1305 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chatrapur arising out of Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.373 of 2024. Full Article
hi Grasim Industries Limited vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: RESERVED ON : 11th NOVEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 12th NOVEMBER 2024 _______________________ Judgment (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.) 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. NOVEMBER 12, 2024 18-WP(L)-17982-2024(J).DOCX 2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Briefly, the petition challenges an order dated 30 th March 2024 passed by respondent No.1 ("impugned order" for short). By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner dated 9 th November 2022 seeking waiver of interest charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Income Tax Act" for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22 ("A. Y. Year 2021-22" for short) stood rejected. The reliefs/prayers in the petition are set out at pages 52 to 54 in para 12 thereof. The substantive relief/prayer is to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 and to grant waiver of interest for an amount of Rs.3,88,59,353/- charged under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act. Such is the limited issue for consideration before us. Full Article
hi Truly Pest Solution Pvt Ltd (Being A ... vs Principal Chief Mechanical ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The present petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act'), by the original claimant seeking to quash and set aside the arbitral award dated 4th February 2022, passed by the sole arbitrator. FACTS 2. On 5th May 2016, a tender was published by the Divisional Railway Manager (Mechanical), Central Railway, Mumbai (for short 'Railways') towards the work of Pest and Rodent Control, in railway Diksha Rane 24. ARBP 43-23-FINAL.doc passenger coaches maintained at CSTM, WB, MZN, DRT and LDT, Coaching Depots and Rodent Control in Coaching Depots yard and premises. The petitioner participated in the tender process and on 7 th June 2016, was declared as the successful bidder. Accordingly, the contract work of the said tender was awarded to the petitioner, for an amount of Rs.1,96,32,255/-. The contract period was for three years i.e. from 30th November 2016 to 29th November 2019. Full Article
hi Abdul Gani Bhat vs Chief Secretary Union Territory Of J&K on 8 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Through: - CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 08.11.2024 The short grievance projected by the petitioner, who is present person in the Court, is that he has e-mailed various complaints to the respondents with respect to outcome of the investigation, pertaining to FIR No. 114/2022, however, the same has not evoked any response till date. The petitioner submits that he will be satisfied if the concerned authorities are directed to accord consideration and dispose of the said complaints as per law and report in this respect is furnished to him. Full Article
hi Abdul Rashid Mochi And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Through: - None CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE (ORDER) 11.11.2024 This is an application filed by the petitioners to place on record the documents. For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, by learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record. Full Article
hi Showkat Rashid Chopan vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors. ... on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 11.11.2024 1. The petitioner being a consolidated worker engaged by the Municipal Committee, Handwara came to be terminated/disengaged from service with immediate effect in terms of impugned order No. MC/Hand/Estt/2022-23/32-36 dated 06.04.2023 by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Handwara. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner. 2. In terms of an order dated 12.04.2023, this Court came to keep on hold the operation of the impugned order dated 06.04.2023, with a further interim direction unto the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a consolidated worker in terms of his original engagement order dated 30.12.2006. Full Article
hi Bentley Motors amână planul pentru producția de vehicule electrice By www.forbes.ro Published On :: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:07:29 +0000 Bentley Motors Ltd. amână planul de a oferi doar vehicule complet electrice (EV – electric vehicles) până în 2030, pentru că vânzările de EV-uri continuă să dezamăgească la nivel de industrie. Compania va extinde termenul pentru strategia de afaceri „Beyond100” – acum denumită „Beyond100+” – cu cinci ani, până în 2035, a declarat președintele și ... The post Bentley Motors amână planul pentru producția de vehicule electrice appeared first on Forbes Romania. Full Article Actualitate Afaceri Auto Bani și Investiţii
hi Bursa elvețiană cumpără Aquis din Marea Britanie în cea mai mare achiziție din 2020 By www.forbes.ro Published On :: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:10:05 +0000 Operatorul bursei elvețiene, SIX Group AG, a convenit achiziția Aquis Exchange Plc, o bursă de tranzacționare și furnizor de date din Marea Britanie, într-o tranzacție cu o valoare de aproximativ 194 milioane de lire sterline (250 milioane de dolari), potrivit Bloomberg. Conform unui comunicat de presă emis luni, consiliul Aquis a recomandat în unanimitate această ... The post Bursa elvețiană cumpără Aquis din Marea Britanie în cea mai mare achiziție din 2020 appeared first on Forbes Romania. Full Article Actualitate Afaceri Bani și Investiţii
hi Catalyst Trusteeship Limited vs Mantri Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent Nos.1 to 9. 2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the order of status-quo granted by the Trial Court dated 05.10.2024 in O.S.No.7166/2024 passed on I.A.No.2 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 9 and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs before the Trial Court also sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 from enforcing or acting upon the invocation notice dated 28.09.2024 and from taking any further action regarding transfer or encumbrance of the pledged shares of Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (100%), Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. (51%) or Agara Techzone Pvt. Ltd. (12%) or from enforcing any security under the Bond Trust Deed and Pledge Agreements, until final adjudication of the rights of the parties by the Trial Court and inter alia sought for the relief on I.A.No.2 to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from enforcing or acting upon invocation notice dated 28.09.2024. The respondents also filed applications and order is passed only on I.A.Nos.2 to 4. It is also borne out from the records that caveat was also filed and learned counsel for both the parties were heard and suit was filed before the Vacation Court and I.A.No.1 was filed under Section 11(3) of Bengaluru City Civil Court Act to take up the matter before the Vacation Court and the same was allowed. Full Article
hi Smt R Leelavathi vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: IN RE: B.K.NAGARAJAPPA 6. The petitioner Sri B.K.Nagarajappa had served the Corporation between 05.04.2021 to 30.06.2022 as General Manager. Previous approval has been granted for the purpose of investigation as regards the following: NC: 2024:KHC:45706 PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¸ÀASÉå 1 PÀ®§ÄVð f¯Éè, PÁ¼ÀV ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.79/2022 gÀ PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 409, 420, gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ 2 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¹zÁÝ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.56/2023, PÀ®A ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ 406, 420 ¸ÀºÀ 149 L¦¹ 3 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.07/2023, PÀ®A- Full Article
hi Section 8 Of The Pocso Act vs In Re: Ashim Ghosh @ Patla on 11 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Investigation is complete. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits victim was a minor. 3. Learned Advocate for the de-facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. We have considered the materials on record. Victim was a minor and the petitioner subjected her to sexual assault. However, investigation is complete. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted anticipatory bail however, subject to strict conditions. Full Article
hi Kali Kishore Bagchi vs Security And Exchange Board Of India & ... on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: 1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Kolkata, in the proceeding being Special Case No. SEBI/39/2018. 2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had joined in Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited as an executive director on 27.04.2004, for the erection and commissioning of renewal energy power project. The said Amrit Bio Energy and Industries Limited is a group of companies under Amrit Projects Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. After being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, Kailash Chand Dujari, the Managing Director of Amrit Projects Ltd. and its group of companies had offered the petitioner to become director of several other group companies of Amrit Projects Ltd. After joining the said Amrit Group the petitioner was to look into the development and set up of a power project of 10 M.W. in the District of Bankura, West Bengal. The said project was successfully completed under the supervision of the petitioner. The said Amrit Project Limited had started a business receiving deposits from the public at large without consulting with the petitioner. The petitioner had tendered resignation and resigned from the said Amrit Projects Limited and all its group of companies in the year 2013. Full Article
hi Shashi Dungdung vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega. ... ... Petitioner -Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. ------ 02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties. Full Article
hi Shashi Dungdung vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Shashi Dungdung, aged about 24 years, S/o. Late Amrus Dungdung, R/o. Vill.- Karangagudi, Baijutoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kersai, Dist.- Simdega. ... ... Petitioner -Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. ------ 02/12.11.2024 Heard the parties. Full Article
hi Musa Rahimbhai Saiyed vs State Of Gujarat on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Full Article
hi Bhimabhai Haribhai Bharwad (Parmar) vs State Of Gujarat on 12 November, 2024 By indiankanoon.org Published On :: Full Article
hi WSJ Opinion: Hits and Misses of the Week By Published On :: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 17:06:13 GMT Journal Editorial Report: The week's best and worst from Kim Strassel, Jason Riley, Kyle Peterson and Dan Henninger. Reuters/AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly Full Article
hi WSJ Opinion: The High Political Heat of the Crime Wave By Published On :: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 15:33:36 GMT Journal Editorial Report: Progressive prosecutors make no apologies. Image: Gabriella Audi/AFP via Getty Images Full Article
hi WSJ Opinion: Does Joe Biden Actually Have a China Policy? By Published On :: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 16:06:09 GMT Journal Editorial Report: A diplomatic Olympic boycott may not be enough. Image: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Full Article
hi WSJ Opinion: Hits and Misses of the Week By Published On :: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 16:15:28 GMT Journal Editorial Report: The week's best and worst from Kim Strassel, Bill McGurn, Jillian Melchior and Dan Henninger. Images: AFP via Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly Full Article
hi Alibaba Tries to Go Global With ‘Singles Day,’ China’s Big Shopping Festival By Published On :: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 10:29:15 GMT Singles Day in China is the world’s largest annual shopping extravaganza. Its creator, the e-commerce giant Alibaba, is now exporting the event to the rest of the world as part of its push to challenge Amazon and others. Photo: Geoffroy Van der Hasselt/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images Full Article
hi Watch: Scientists Study Rare Coral Reef Discovered Near Tahiti By Published On :: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 22:39:02 GMT A coral reef in pristine condition was discovered in the South Pacific. It is thought to be one of the largest found, as deep as 230 feet beneath the ocean’s surface. Photo: Alexis Rosenfeld/Associated Press Full Article
hi Nor’easter Soaks the East Coast With Flooding Rains, Lashing Winds By Published On :: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 10:30:00 GMT The first nor’easter of the season barreled across the east coast, bringing heavy rain and high winds. Cars were stuck on flooded roads in Massachusetts as some homes in New Jersey lost power on Tuesday. Photo: Peter Pereira/Associated Press Full Article
hi U.S. and China Agreed on a Global Tax. Could They Resolve Other Issues? By Published On :: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 11:56:00 GMT Beijing and Washington have been at loggerheads on issues from tech to human rights and territorial claims, but a recent global tax deal shows how the rivals can also cooperate. WSJ looks at what’s next for U.S.-China relations as the G-20 meets in Rome. Photo Composite: Sharon Shi Full Article
hi Biden Hosts Democracy Summit Amid Tensions With China and Russia By Published On :: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:00:00 GMT As authoritarian regimes in China and Russia continue to make gains, President Biden faces a challenge of reigniting global democracy at his Summit for Democracy. WSJ’s Gerald F. Seib explains how Biden will navigate these challenges at the virtual summit. Photo Illustration: Elise Dean Full Article
hi Washington Pays Tribute to Bob Dole at Capitol Ceremony By Published On :: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 17:48:29 GMT Bob Dole, a longtime Republican leader and senator for more than half a century, was honored at a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda on Thursday. President Biden and leaders of Congress were among those paying tribute. Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Pool via AP Full Article
hi ‘Democracy Held:’ Washington Reflects on Jan. 6 Capitol Riot By Published On :: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 02:02:33 GMT President Biden and congressional lawmakers on Thursday remembered the one-year anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot with a series of speeches and a candlelight vigil. WSJ’s Sadie Gurman explains how the day unfolded in Washington, D.C. Photo: Tom Brenner/Reuters Full Article
hi How Omicron Challenges U.S. and China on Vaccine Diplomacy By Published On :: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 10:25:00 GMT China got out ahead of the U.S. in shipping its Covid-19 vaccines around the world, but the Biden administration said it has donated more doses. WSJ examines how Omicron challenges both as they push for global influence. Photo: Rodrigo Sura/Esteban Biba/Shutterstock Full Article
hi China’s ‘Zero-Covid’ Policy Creates New Supply-Chain Worries By Published On :: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:40:57 GMT To keep out Covid-19, China closed some border gates late last year, leaving produce to rot in trucks. Restrictions like these and rules at some Chinese ports, the gateways for goods headed to the world, could cascade into delays in the global supply chain. Photo composite: Emily Siu Full Article
