Advocatemmmohan

Return of Cheque bounce complaints by Delhi High court -Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi have taken cognizance only because the statutory notices in terms of proviso to Section 138 of the Act have been issued to the drawers of the cheque from Delhi. - Apex court held that we have no hesitation in holding that the issue of a notice from Delhi or deposit of the cheque in a Delhi bank by the payee or receipt of the notice by the accused demanding payment in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts in Delhi. What is important is whether the drawee bank who dishonoured the cheque is situate within the jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance. In that view, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court which simply requires the Magistrate to examine and return the complaints if they do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same in the light of the legal position as stated in Harman’s case (supra). All that we need to add is that while examining the question of jurisdiction the Metropolitan Magistrates concerned to whom the High Court has issued directions shall also keep in view the decision of this Court in Dashrath’s case (supra).= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29044 of 2009) Vinay Kumar Shailendra …Appellant Versus Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and Anr. …Respondents= 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41877

 Return of Cheque bounce complaints by Delhi High court -Metropolitan  Magistrates  in  Delhi  have taken cognizance only because the statutory notices in terms of  proviso  to Section 138 of the Act have been issued to the drawers of  the  cheque  from Delhi. – Apex court held that we  have  no hesitation in holding that the issue of a notice from Delhi  or  deposit  of the cheque in a Delhi…

View On WordPress

Dying Declaration - oral report mentioned at the time of admission in case sheet to duty doctor - that husband poured kerosin and lit fire orally amounts to dying declaration - to the Nurse is also amounts to dying declaration - absence of kerosin smell on the hairs of deceased in forensic test - makes no difference for coming to conclusion when Dying Declaration was corroborated by Evidence and further Surinder Kumar (Supra) is distinguishable for the simple reason that the dying declaration fully supports the prosecution version. - Apex court dismissed the appeal =CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1503 OF 2007 TANUA RABIDAS …..APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM ….RESPONDENT = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41876

Dying Declaration – oral report mentioned at the time of admission in case sheet to duty doctor – that husband poured kerosin and lit fire orally amounts to dying declaration – to the Nurse is also amounts to dying declaration – absence of kerosin smell on the hairs of deceased in forensic test – makes no difference for coming to conclusion when Dying Declaration was corroborated by Evidence and further Surinder Kumar (Supra) is distinguishable for the simple reason that the dying declaration fully supports the prosecution version. – Apex court dismissed the appeal =CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1503 OF 2007 TANUA RABIDAS …..APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM ….RESPONDENT = 2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41876

Dying Declaration –  oral report mentioned at the time of admission in case sheet to duty doctor – that husband poured kerosin and lit fire orally amounts to dying declaration – to the Nurse is also amounts to dying declaration – absence of kerosin  smell on the hairs of deceased in forensic test – makes no difference for coming to conclusion when Dying Declaration was corroborated by Evidence…

View On WordPress

Mahalaya Paksha

Call the ancestors

with love & affection for dine

Offer something with great benevolence 

Like Arm of God , they will protective you & your family 

Supplicate them at least once in a year in these Mahalaya Paksha ……advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

Accident claim - Temporary Registration - Not applied for permanent registration - meanwhile accident took place - Vehicle damaged - Claim for insurance - rejected - State & National commission also rejected - Apex court held that Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period of temporary registration expired, the appellant, owner of the vehicle either applied for permanent registration as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act or made any application for extension of period as temporary registration on the ground of some special reasons. In our view, therefore, using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of policy contract. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and the National Commission.= CIVIL APPEAL NO.8463 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26308 of 2013) Narinder Singh …Appellant (s) Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others …Respondent(s) = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41875

    Accident claim – Temporary Registration – Not applied for permanent registration – meanwhile accident took place – Vehicle damaged – Claim for insurance – rejected – State & National commission also rejected – Apex court held that Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant  to  show that before or after 11.1.2006, when the period  of  temporary  registration expired, the appellant,…

View On WordPress

Sec.21,22 of MMDR Act - vs- Sec. 378,379 /114 of I.P.C. - whether the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or impliedly excludes the provisions of Indian Penal Code when the act of an accused is an offence both under the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act - Apex court held that we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the river beds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under the IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 Cr.P.C., on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorized officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMRD Act. Consequently the contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, overruled. Consequently, these criminal appeals are disposed of with a direction to the concerned Magistrates to proceed accordingly. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2011 STATE OF NCT OF DELHI … Appellant(s) Versus SANJAY … Respondent(s) = 2014 Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41874

 Sec.21,22 of MMDR Act – vs- Sec. 378,379 /114 of I.P.C. – whether   the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or  impliedly  excludes  the provisions of Indian Penal Code when the act of an  accused  is  an  offence both under the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and under the  provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act – Apex court held that we  are  of  the…

View On WordPress

 Sec.3 of Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act (amendement ) 1989 – Notification declaring the…

 Sec.3 of Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act (amendement ) 1989 – Notification declaring the Urdu as second language – Challenged  as unconstitutional – High court dismissed the writ – Apex court held that We hold, as we must, that neither insertion of Section 3 in  the 1989 Amendment Act nor the impugned notification in pursuance of  the  above provision notifying Urdu as  the  second  language…

View On WordPress

Service Matter - Removed from service as the Conductor misappropriated the Tickets amounts - Criminal case resulted in Acquittal - entitled for reinstatement - Filed petition in Labour court for reinstatement after acquittal - Decided as Time Barred - Apex court held that in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi (supra) and observed: Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too…… In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted.” In view of the foregoing reasons, the award of the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court are highly erroneous in law. Therefore, the same are required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction as there is miscarriage of justice for the workman in this case. The respondent is directed to reinstate the appellant-workman with back wages from the date of raising the industrial dispute i.e. 02.03.2005 till the date of his reinstatement with all consequential benefits such as continuity of service, wage revisions and other statutory monetary benefits as the respondent has been litigating the dispute without tenable and acceptable reason; and Since the appellant-workman was compelled to take on this long battle of litigation to get his rights enforced from the Court of law, the respondent is directed to implement this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8434 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 22487 of 2012) RAGHUBIR SINGH ………APPELLANT Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR ………RESPONDENT = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41871

Service Matter – Removed from service as the Conductor misappropriated the Tickets amounts – Criminal case resulted in Acquittal – entitled for reinstatement –  Filed petition in Labour court for reinstatement after acquittal – Decided as Time Barred – Apex court held that in  Surendra  Kumar

Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New  Delhi

(supra) and observed: Plain…

View On WordPress

Service matter - Minimum Height - Police Selections - Height qualified - but rejected post on the ground that Tallest persons were given chance - Apex court held that In our opinion, once a candidate has the minimum height as required by the relevant Rules, height then becomes an irrelevant consideration and other criteria should be taken into consideration, like intelligence, physical strength, etc. In this case, the selection amongst those who had the minimum height was done by only selecting the tallest candidates for the available vacancies. We are of the opinion that this was wholly arbitrary, and police constables must also have intelligence and other requirements, apart from height. and allowed the appeal with a direction to give post in fresh vacancies = CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8450 of 2014 [ Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15194 of 2006 ] ABHAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41906

Service matter – Minimum Height – Police Selections – Height qualified – but rejected post on the ground that Tallest persons were given chance – Apex court held that In our opinion, once a candidate has the minimum height as required by the relevant Rules, height then becomes an irrelevant consideration and other criteria should be taken into consideration, like intelligence, physical strength, etc. In this case, the selection amongst those who had the minimum height was done by only selecting the tallest candidates for the available vacancies. We are of the opinion that this was wholly arbitrary, and police constables must also have intelligence and other requirements, apart from height. and allowed the appeal with a direction to give post in fresh vacancies = CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8450 of 2014 [ Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15194 of 2006 ] ABHAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS = 2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41906

 Service matter – Minimum Height – Police Selections – Height qualified – but rejected post on the ground that Tallest persons were given chance – Apex court held that In our opinion, once a candidate has the minimum height as required  by  the relevant Rules, height then becomes an irrelevant  consideration  and  other criteria should be taken into  consideration,  like  intelligence,  physical 

View On WordPress

Review - Art. 145 (1) & (3) of Constitution - ORAL HEARING at Review of judgement or order - Constitution Bench held that We make it clear that the law laid down in this judgment, viz., the right of a limited oral hearing in review petitions where death sentence is given, shall be applicable only in pending review petitions and such petitions filed in future. It will also apply where a review petition is already dismissed but the death sentence is not executed so far. In such cases, the petitioners can apply for the reopening of their review petition within one month from the date of this judgment. However, in those cases where even a curative petition is dismissed, it would not be proper to reopen such matters. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.=WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.77 OF 2014 Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq … Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others … Respondents = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41867

Review – Art. 145 (1) & (3) of Constitution – ORAL HEARING at Review of judgement or order – Constitution Bench held that We make it clear that the law laid down in this judgment, viz., the right of a limited oral hearing in review petitions where death sentence is given, shall be applicable only in pending review petitions and such petitions filed in future. It will also apply where a review petition is already dismissed but the death sentence is not executed so far. In such cases, the petitioners can apply for the reopening of their review petition within one month from the date of this judgment. However, in those cases where even a curative petition is dismissed, it would not be proper to reopen such matters. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.=WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.77 OF 2014 Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq … Petitioner Versus The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others … Respondents = 2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41867

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.77 OF 2014

Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq … Petitioner

Versus

The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India & Others … Respondents
WITH

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.137 OF 2010

C. Muniappan & Others … Petitioners

Versus

The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India … Respondent
WITH

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.52 OF 2011

B.A.…

View On WordPress