April 11, 2018

Important Indian Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Wednesday, 11th April 2018]

1. Tata International Ltd. Vs. Arihant Coals Sales [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Companies Act, 1956 - In order to raise presumption u/s 434(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 as a company’s inability to pay its debt, it is not sufficient to show merely that the company has omitted to pay debt due despite service of notice, it must be shown that company has omitted to pay without reasonable excuse - If the debt is bonafidely disputed and the defence is substantial one, Court will not wind up the company - The machinery for winding up will not be allowed to be utilized merely as a means for realizing debts due from a company - As a thumb rule it cannot be said that merely because reply to the statutory notice is not given, debt is either admitted or presumption can be drawn that the respondent is unable to pay the debt - When there is mutually agreed arbitration clause, normally the company proceedings is not an appropriate remedy. Read more : http://bit.ly/2ILuLDz

2. Raj Brothers Shipping v. Commissioner of Customs [Madras High Court]

When there is an effective and alternate remedy, provided under the taxing laws, writ petitions, should not be entertained.

3. Manoj v. State [Delhi High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 452, 147, 148 & 302/149 - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 25 - Charges under - Initial information of the occurrence - Medico Legal Certificate - Post-mortem examination - Arrests and recovery - Preparation of site plans - Lack of 'common object' - Law relating to evidence of interested eye witnesses - Analysis of eye witness testimonies - Delay in registering the FIR - No basis for change in 'common object'.

4. Carnet Elias Fernandes v. District Magistrate [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - High Court directed to hand over the physical possession of the properties to the receiver - The order passed by the Bombay High Court is certainly having a binding effect and cannot override and ceased by taking shelter of any other law, be it SARFAESI Act. Read More http://bit.ly/2qq3KyR

5. Shailesh @ Rinku v. State [Delhi High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 411, 392, 397, 302, 201 - Charges under - Complainant's narration of events - Inspection of the scene of crime - Post mortem examination - Arrest and recovery of the weapon of offence - trial & judgment Law relating to circumstantial evidence - 'Last seen' evidence - inconsistent evidence - Analysis of Call Data Record (CDRs) - Suspicious arrest of the accused - Unconvincing recoveries - Held, There are too many loopholes in the case of the prosecution - The circumstances that remain unproved are too numerous - The circumstances as put forth by the prosecution do not form a continuous chain - It cannot be said that each of the links in the chain has been convincingly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - Therefore, the benefit of doubt, in this regard, ought to be given to the accused.

6. Dinesh Singh Raghuvanshi v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 482 & 156 (3) - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 506 Part-2, 34 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - S. 3(1)(x) - Quashment of the FIR - Merely because the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was set aside on the technical ground and the matter was remanded back to the Court of Magistrate, it would not erase the allegations made in the complaint.

7. Dipti Kushwah Vs. Vijay Shankar Tiwari [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 156 (3) & 362 - Whether the Criminal Court has power to review its own order ? Whether the complaint can be dismissed only on the ground that an order under Section 156(3) of CrPC has been passed and the F.I.R. has been lodged ? Read More : http://bit.ly/2Hw6ZvZ

8. Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 109, 115, 116, 121, 298, 502, 511 - Quashing of Proceedings - published and distributed a pamphlet just to incite hatred and illwill amongst different communities - television programme telecasted in Peace TV - From perusal of the summoning order and complaint, it cannot be said that prima facie, no case is made out - Most of the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Read More : http://bit.ly/2HjXT7Z
Previous Post
Next Post