Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(1)BomCR382
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court by a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent powers of this Court and in the process challenged the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 6-12-1993 and 11-12-1993. They prayed that the custody of the Tata Diesel Vehicle in question should be handed over in their favour and their application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in their behalf be allowed.2. A short resume of the facts would highlight the controversy.The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and deals in Tata Diesel Vehicles. There is a Hire Purchase Scheme of the Company. The non-applicant No. 2 - Awatarsingh Niranjansingh Saini was a person who was interested in hire purchase of Tata diesel truck. He, therefore, entered into an agreement of hire purchase with the Company. He was to pay the instalments as fixed in the Hire Purchase Agreement. It is an admitted case that in purs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(2)BomCR518
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J. 1. This is an application by the complainant in a Criminal Case challenging the order passed in appeal by the convicted person in which the order of the disposal of the property passed by the learned trial Judge was varied. Bhikaji s/o. Tukaram Darade - applicant had filed a report with the Police that electric motor pump owned by him and fixed in a well situated in Survey No. 26 at village Limbala, Taluka : Jintoor, was stolen. Police investigated the complaint and filed a charge-sheet against Nago, Sahebrao, Damodhar and Rama. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jintoor, who tried this Criminal Case No. 37 of 1984 was pleased to convict accused No. 2 and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 60 days. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were acquitted. The learned Magistrate was further pleased to order that the electric motor which was already handed over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3647
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Shrivstava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, and Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.2. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of plot No. 64 situated at Mount Road Extension, Nagpur. In the said premises, husband of petitioner No. 3 late Shri Vimal Chandra Grover established a hotel, which is known as 'Hotel Upvan'. Shri Vimal Chandra Grover expired on 25-10-2004. At that time, petitioner No. 4 was residing in U.S.A. Hence, petitioner No. 3 decided to permit petitioner No. 1 to run the said hotel. The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1, who helped petitioner No. 1 in running the hotel business.3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that in the year 2007, a dispute arose betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ583
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These applications filed under Section 538(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, are disposed of by this common order as they involve common questions of law and fact.2. Applications have been filed averring that the Company has been ordered to be wound up by an order passed by this Court in company petition referred to in the applications and thereafter, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court became the Liquidator of the said Company by virtue of Section 449 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and thereafter, the Official Liquidator issued notice to the Ex-Directors to hand over the books of account and records of the Company. However, the Ex-Directors and Officers of the Company, who are arrayed as respondents did not produce the account books or the documents as required by the Official Liquidator and wherefore, the applications are filed seeking for a direction to the respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2779; 20(1981)DLT302; ILR1981Delhi680
ORDER1. S. C. Gudimani lodged a complaint against six persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate. New Delhi, on February 21, 1980 under Sections 120B, 420, 421, 422, 425 and 34 I.P.C. Though there is nothing on record, but it is not denied that the accused were represented by Shri Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar, a junior colleague of Shri Dinesh Chand Mathur, and they did so without a Vakalatnama. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated May 15, 1980, summoned only four of the accused including Lt. Col. K. C. Sud, under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and dismissed the complaint with regard to offences under Sections 120B, 421, 422 and 425 I.P.C. 2. Against the aforesaid order, the present petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Lt. Col. Sud by Shri D. C. Mathur and Kumari Naresh Parmar. The revision petition was admitted by this court on August 20, 1980. When the petition came up for hearing, Shri Balraj Trikha, the learned Advocate for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998IVAD(Delhi)197; 1998(46)DRJ537
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J:1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal complaint No. 289/1 of 1996 pending before Shri V.K. Maheshwari, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. 2. Shri Gauri Shankar Mittal and the two petitioners, namely, Shri O.P. Chirania and Shri Binod Kumar Chirania, are the partners of M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates, respondent No.3 (for short 'the firm') having its branch offices in New Delhi and Patna and Head Office at Calcutta. The firm is doing a lottery business. In 1992 the State of Haryana was running seven weekly lotteries namely, Jai Durga, Mahadev, Hari Om, Jai Vishnu, Shri Ganesh, Maha Laxmi and Mahabali. On June 29, 1992, the Govt. of Haryana, represented by the Director of Haryana State Lotteries, Chandigarh, and M/s. Deep Mayank and Associates entered into an agreement whereby the former constituted the latter as its main stockists of lottery tickets of the above said weekly lotterie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 17(1980)DLT404; ILR1979Delhi571
V.D. Misra, J.(1) Kuljeet Singh @ Ranga and Jasbir- Singh @ Billa have been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to death for having committed the murder of Gee'a and Sanjay. Both of them have also been convicted under sections 365/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code; under sections 366/363 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under section 376 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Each of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count as well as the second, and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the third count. Jasbir Singh @ Billa has also been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Ranga and Billa have filed separate appeals against their convictions and sentences. The trial court has also submitted the proceedings to the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1451; ILR1974Delhi896
Jagjit Singh, J.(1) This appeal is against an order dated October 4, 1972 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. On an application submitted on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. V. D. Misra J.. held against Hanuman Prasad Ganeriwala that offences 'under sections 182, 196, 199, 200, 209, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, as referred to in section 195, sub-section (1), clauses (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure appear to have been committed in or in relation to the proceedings of this Court' and 'that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into these offences, and complaint be made to a Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter'. (2) For appreciating the contentions which have been raised in the appeal it is necessary to state certain facts. A property at No. 1 Raj Narain Road, Delhi, on an area of approximately 3,700 square yards, was purchased by the Mercantile Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)150; [2001]103CompCas569(Mad); 2000CriLJ1579; 2000(1)CTC225
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of the two Criminal Original Petitions they being Crl.O.P.Nos.10902 of 1998 and 6369 of 1999. A reference has been made in Crl.O.P.No.l0902 of 1998 by the learned Judge (M. Karpagavinayagam,J.) in the following terms:'In order to decide as to whether the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed before the court is within time, which is the date to be taken into account? Is it the date of presentation made before the court or the date on which the court took cognizance?'2. The said reference was necessitated on account of there being a conflict between two decisions of this Court, both by the learned single Judges of this Court. In D. Ramamoorthy v. K.J. Duraisamy, 1995 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 300, Janarthanam,J. had held that once the complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was presented within limitation and that presentation was noted b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(3)BomCR210; (1999)IIILLJ312Bom
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. By this writ petition under the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with the provision of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have impugned the issue of process against them by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, in the criminal complaint filed against them for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Scheme', respectively).2. The first petitioner is a limited company, which owns a textile mill known as Mukesh Textile Mills covered by the provisions of the Act. Petitioners 2 to 8 and 10 to 13 are the Directors of the first petitioner, while petitioner No. 9 is said to be an ex-Director. Petitioner No. 14 is the President of the Textile Division of the first petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the Regional Director appointed under the A...
Tag this Judgment!