Advanced Search Results

Suhas Bhand Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 255 to 258, 303(1) and 303(2); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 141; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 74, 76, 77 and 79; Contract Act - Sections 70; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3774

said judgment make this aspect clear. In paragraph 20, the case of Dushyant D. Anjira v. Wall Street Finance Ltd. and Anr. AIR 2001 Bom 655 has been considered. It has been held in that case that … the case of Amit Mohan Inder Sharma v. Mamta Agency and Ors. 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1246, which is relied upon on behalf of accused … registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in a criminal proceeding initiated against such Director of such Company under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act). 2. The Petitioners in each of

Present: Mr. Arun Bansal Advocate Vs. Ankur Gupta

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Land Acquisition

facts of the case are that accused and his father-Ram Kumar availed loan from Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited, Karnal, Haryana and complainant stood as a guarantor to the said Ram Kumar. This loan was taken … issued from a cheque book which was obtained on 30.11.2004 from Punjab National Bank, Thanesar. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the complainant/petitioner against the accused with the allegations that he,

A.P.Constructions Vs. Nirmala Kumari

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Managing Partner A.P. Constructions No.18, 4th Cross Street Dhandeeswar Nagar .. Petitioners Versus Nirmala Kumari Proprietix M/s. Sanjay Finance Sowcarpet, Chenna”079. rep. by her Power of Attorney Holder Prakashchand Lalwani .. Respondent Crl. O.P. No.12255 of 2007 … Town, Chennai. The above said C.C. No. 4395 of 2002 was filed by the respondent Nirmala Kumari under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Brief facts which led to the institution of C.C. No. 4395 of 2002

Amarnath Baijnath Gupta and anr. Vs. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. and anr ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : BankingCriminal

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 141, 141(1), 142 and 145; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 192, 200, 397 and 482; Constitution of India - Article 227

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR258; 2009CriLJ995

was issued against all the accused including the petitioners on 2nd September 2007 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act.5. The … also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kapal Mehra v. Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd. : 2008(2)BomCR359 and submitted that the persons sought to be made criminally liable under Section 141 must … first respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners and four others alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The

Jyoti W/O Rajkumar Sahajwani Vs. Shri Sadhu S/O Safarmal Manjani and A ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Subject : Land Acquisition

(2) Mh.L.J. 1003 (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali...Versus...Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal and another). (b) AIR 2009 Supreme Court 422 (M/s. Shankar Finance and Investments ...Versus... State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.). 35. In the case of MamatadeviPrafullakumar Bhansali...Versus...Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal … by the present appellant was dismissed and present respondent no.1/original accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions in the present appeal and

M/S. Enpee Earthmovers and Others Vs. M/S.Resources International and ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Subject : Land Acquisition

that the interest has been calculated on amount of provisional bills and not final bills. Relying upon “Karekar Finance Pvt. Ltd. V/s Shri M. N. Bashyam and anr.” [2007(2) Goa L.R. 465], the learned Counsel contended that … impugned in the present appeals, the Complaints filed by the appellant against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (N.I. Act, for short) were all dismissed. 3. The parties shall hereinafter

M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

Secondary and Higher Education Cess on excisable goods leviable under section 136 read with section 138 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007);(vii)(vii) the additional duty leviable under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to the duty

Commissioner of Central Excise and S.T., Vadodara Vs. M/S. Banco Produ ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Service Tax

on which education cess under Section 93 of Finance Act, 2004 ad SandH cess under Section 138 of Finance Act, 2007 is to be charged, would not include education cess and SandH cess under Section 94 of Finance Act,

Cellular Operators Association of India and Others vs.union of India a ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

falling in the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from whole of SHE leviable under Section 138 of the Finance Act, 2007. In respect of taxable services, the Finance Act, 2015 had omitted Section 95 … of EC on excisable goods and taxable services. SHE on excisable goods and taxable services was imposed vide Finance Act, 2007.3. Under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, for short), credit of EC and SHE was admissible and could

Rci Industries & Technologies Ltd vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031. 2 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., DEPARTMENT OF TRADE FINANCE CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, SIB BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,PIN - … before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Ernakulam under Section 28(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (“the PSS Act, 2007” for brevity).2. As the legal issues and contentions raised in all these petitions are … of the Cr.P.C. ought to have postponed the issue of process?(v) Can the petitioners be made liable under Section 138 in view of the fact that the current account maintained by the 1st accused stands attached by the