Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (3.35 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra And Others vs Saifuddin Mujjaffarali Saifi on 29 June, 1993

State vs . on 29 June, 2012

8. In respect of recovery of abovesaid motorcycle, prosecution has examined PW3, PW5 and PW7. PW7 Assistant Sub Inspector Shiv Murti has deposed that on 20.10.2011, he arrested the accused Ashraf saifi in case FIR No. 330/11, u/s. 25 Arms Act, PS Gandhi Nagar and during interrogation, he made a disclosure statement about his involvement in the present case. He has further deposed that motorcycle of the present case, i.e., bearing No. DL­13SA­8555 was recovered from the possession of the Page no. 4 of 6 State Vs. Ashraf Saifi ; FIR No. 327/11 5 accused Ashraf Saifi and same was taken into possession under section 102 Cr.P.C. through seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. He had handed over the relevent documents of case FIR No. 330/11 to Head Constable Raj Kumar. He has further deposed that accused was arrested and personally searched by HC Raj Kumar in the present case and HC Raj Kumar recorded his statement in this regard. PW3 Ct. Rakesh and PW5 Ct. Sudhir have deposed on the lines of PW7 and have corroborated the version of PW7. PW10 HC Rajkumar has proved that on 21.10.2011, he had arrested the accused Ashraf Saifi in the present case who was already arrested in case no. 330/11, PS Gandhi Nagar. He has also deposed that said motorcycle was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. Prosecution has also examined PW8 Rajiv who is the Alhmed of this Court and he had brought the original record, i.e., recovery memo of motorcycle, pointing out memo and site plan Ex. PW8/B, PW8/C and PW8/D respectively. Recovery witnesses, PW3, PW5 and PW7 have fully supported the case of prosecution and they have deposed regarding recovery of stolen motorcycle of the present case from the possession of accused. They have also correctly identified the accused and case property during their respective evidence. Nothing has come in cross­examination of these witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ioc Yarn Agency vs Samsons Processing Industries on 18 January, 2001

18. He further cited a judgment , State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Saifuddin Mujjaffarali Saifi, in its head note 'B' and paragraph 45 that current rate of interest has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Interest Act, 1978. The maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits by different classes of scheduled Banks fixed in accordance with the directions given or issued by the Banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act. The scheduled Bank "means a Bank not being Cooperative Bank, However, debt means the liability of an ascertained sum of money but not included any judgment debt." In any event, it has also bracketed under the definition that the interest on account of Savings Bank and those maintained by charitable or religious institutions will not be applicable in determining current rate of interest. Therefore in all submission is made that no amount was due and payable even if purported rate of interest of 24% claimed to be agreed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Lala - Full Document

Anil Kumar Banerjee vs Indian Oil Corporation on 10 June, 2004

11. Contention has further been made referring to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure that only in case of a commercial transaction, said provision is available and in present case, the agreement being for excavation work and sand filing by contractor, same cannot be treated as a commercial transaction and therefore, Section 34 of the Code has no application. Definition of Commerce is given in the Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition was relied on. Reference was made to the, judgment in the case of Saligram Ruplal Khanna v. Kumar Rqjnath , Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute , Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra , State of Maharashtra v. Saifuddin Mujjqffarali Saifi , Dena Bank v. Prakash Birbhan Kataria and Kailash Prasad Modi v. Chief General Manager, Orissa Telecomunication reported in AIR 1994 P & H 98 .
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Bose - Full Document

Casil Health Products Ltd vs Delta Rubber & Plastic Products on 24 July, 2000

Obviously, the transaction under consideration can be said to be the commercial transaction. As such, 6% per annum interest provided under section 34 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply and taking aid from the proviso to section 34(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, interest exceeding 6% per annum could be granted by the court below so also by the arbitrator. Shri Mehta, however, contended that since there is no contractual rate of interest, the interest could not exceed 12% per annum. However, in view of the above proviso, if there is no contractual rate of interest, interest has to be awarded at the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by the nationalized banks in relation to the commercial transactions. Shri Mehta has placed reliance upon the pronouncement of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra versus Saifuddin Mujjaffarali Saifi AIR 1994 Bombay 48 where some observation has been made in paragraph 46 that if the plaintiff can establish that this is the commercial transaction, then, he can certainly agitate that question and can certainly say that he is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum which is the normal lending rate by the banks. This casual observation of the Bombay High Court has to be examined in light of the proviso to section 34(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribes rate at which the moneys are lent or advanced by the nationalized banks in relation to commercial transaction.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document
1