Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Ors on 27 August, 2001

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Vijay Mallya vs M/S.G.M.R. Hyderabad International ... on 9 September, 2014

08. Now coming to the core, as to the orders impugned are interlocutory in nature or not; law is fairly settled from the expression of the Apex Court in M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. that the criteria to decide whether the order is interlocutory in nature or not, is not to decide from mere look of the order but consequent on its result.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - B S Rao - Full Document

Satish Kumar Mishra vs M/S Wood Castle Spa And Resorts on 26 May, 2014

In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., 2001 SCC (Cri) 1254, this Court had laid down the following guidelines, which are to be borne in mind while dealing with an application seeking dispensation with the personal appearance of an accused in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act: 19. ...it is within the powers of a Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the Magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the Magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - U C Dhyani - Full Document

Satish Kumar Mishra vs M/S Wood Castle Spa And Resorts on 26 May, 2014

In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., 2001 SCC (Cri) 1254, this Court had laid down the following guidelines, which are to be borne in mind while dealing with an application seeking dispensation with the personal appearance of an accused in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act: 19. ...it is within the powers of a Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the Magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the Magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - U C Dhyani - Full Document
1   2 Next