Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 718 (2.03 seconds)
Documents citing All India Indian Overseas Bank Sc & St ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 October, 1996

Abdul Sathar vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 26 June, 2019

418. In fact, learned Counsel Mr.Sarath Chandran has also drawn analogy on scope and power of the Human Rights Commission with that of the National Commission for SC and ST established under Article 338 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 452 the Constitution of India. The National Commission for Schedule Castes and the National Commission for Schedule Tribes enjoy the power pari materia to the Commission established under H.R.Act. The Hon'ble Spreme Court dealt with the power of National Commission for Schedule Castes Act, in a case reported in (1996) (6) SCC 606 (All Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association and others versus Union of India and others) (relevant paragraph nos.3, 5, 6 & 10 are extracted supra), and held that merely because the Commission has power of Civil Court, such power do not confer the Commission into a Civil Court The power of Civil Court is only to fine, conduct enquiry within the frame work of the Act and nothing more as to what the Supreme Court ultimately held.
Madras High Court Cites 234 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Abdul Sathar vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 26 June, 2019

418. In fact, learned Counsel Mr.Sharath Chandran has also drawn analogy on scope and power of the Human Rights Commission with that of the National Commission for SC and ST established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India. The National Commission for Schedule Castes and the National Commission for Schedule Tribes enjoy the power pari https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 454 materia to the Commission established under H.R.Act. The Hon'ble Spreme Court dealt with the power of National Commission for Schedule Castes Act, in a case reported in (1996) (6) SCC 606 (All Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association and others versus Union of India and others) (relevant paragraph nos.3, 5, 6 & 10 are extracted supra), and held that merely because the Commission has power of Civil Court, such power do not confer the Commission into a Civil Court The power of Civil Court is only to fine, conduct enquiry within the frame work of the Act and nothing more as to what the Supreme Court ultimately held.
Madras High Court Cites 234 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Having Its Office At No.13 vs R/At No. E on 2 November, 2018

9. Point Nos. 1 and 2: Since these two points are inter linked and to avoid repetition they are taken together for discussion. As already stated in support of the claim of the complainant company, the representative of the complainant company being CW.1 in his sworn statement reiterated the complaint averments in toto which itself is treated as his examination-in-chief in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 - Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India and others - [W.P. (civil) No.18/2013]. In addition to that he has produced extract of the Board Resolution of the complainant company dtd.24.07.2017, Purchase order dtd.29.05.2017 placed by Model Educom Centre, Tax Invoice dtd.29.05.2017, cheque dtd.02.06.2017, bank endorsement dtd.03.06.2017, another 7 C.C. No.60300/2017 cheque dtd.02.06.2017, bank endorsement dtd.03.06.2017, Seven e-mail messages, office copy of the demand notice dtd.27.06.2017, postal acknowledgement as per Ex.P1 to P16 respectively. The contents of Ex.P1 to P16 are analyzed, they clearly support the version of the complainant. The contents of Ex.P1 disclose the authority of CW.1 to file and prosecute the present complaint, Ex.P2 reveals the purchase order placed, Ex.P3 reveals the supply of Apple iPhone 7,128 GB as put up by the complainant. The contents of Ex.P4 to P7 are analyzed, it is clear that the accused had issued two cheques dtd.02.06.2017 for Rs.10 lakhs and for Rs.1,92,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Sahakarnagar, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant and in turn, the complainant had presented the said cheques for encashment through IDFC Bank and the same were returned dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" by memos dtd.03.06.2017 as per Ex.P5 & P7 as contended by the complainant. Further, the contents of Ex.P8 to P14 i.e e-mail messages also support the claim of the complainant. Ex.P15 and P16 reveal that after dishonour of the cheques as found in Ex.P5 and P7, the complainant got issued legal notice dtd.27.06.2017 as per Ex.P15 to the accused by RPAD and the same was served on the accused on 04.07.2017. The complainant had presented the present complaint on 01.08.2017 i.e after lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice and within 30 days thereafter.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

W/O. Shri. Usman K.S vs R/At No.33 on 1 February, 2019

inter linked and to avoid repetition they are taken together for discussion. As already stated in support of the claim of the complainant, the complainant her sworn statement reiterated the complaint averments in toto which itself is treated as examination-in-chief in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 - Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India and others -
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 September, 2019

In All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India1, this Court, dealing with Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India (similar to Section 63 of the Disabilities Act), observed as follows: (SCC pp. 609 & 611, paras 5 & 10) "5. It can be seen from a plain reading of clause (8) that the Commission has the power of the civil court for the purpose of conducting an investigation contemplated in sub-clause (a) and an inquiry into a complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A K Verma - Full Document

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd vs Punjab State Scheduled Caste ... on 15 May, 2024

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association's case (supra), it is held that the Commission can only make recommendation and has no power to issue any directions for promoting any particular employee as the Commission constituted under the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes Act, 2004 is only a regulatory body, which can conduct an investigation and thereafter, gives its recommendation, which may or may not be binding 13 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 16-05-2024 07:09:36 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067744 CWP-8542-2022 upon the Government agencies. Therefore, without going into the merits of the claim of respondent No.2 as to whether he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Executive Engineer, the impugned order dated 02.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commission is wholly without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Special Operations vs Outer Ring Road on 2 November, 2018

10. Point No. 1 : As already stated in support of the claim of the complainant bank, the power of attorney holder- cum-Senior Manager Department for Special Operations of the complainant bank being its representative in his sworn statement reiterated the complaint averments in toto which itself is treated as examination-in-chief in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 - Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India and others - [W.P. (civil) No.18/2013]. In addition to that, the representative of the complainant has produced notarized copy of the power of attorney, five cheques dated 08.09.2017, for Rs.2,50,000/- dtd.28.09.2017, for Rs.3,00,000/- each dtd.10.10.2017, 25.10.2017 and 03.11.2017, bank endorsements dtd.30.11.2017, 01.12.2017, 04.12.2017, 05.12.2017 and 07.12.2017, office copy of the legal notice dtd.20.12.2017, postal receipt dtd.21.12.2017 for having sent notice to the accused by RPAD and postal acknowledgement for having service of the notice on the accused as per Ex.P1 to P14 respectively. The contents of Ex.P1 to P14 are analyzed, they clearly support the version of the complainant. Ex.P1 disclose the authority of CW.1 to represent the complainant bank to prosecute the present case. The contents of Ex.P2 to P11 are analyzed, it is clear that the accused had issued cheques dated 7 C.C. No.52135/2018 08.09.2017, for Rs.2,50,000/- dtd.28.09.2017, for Rs.3,00,000/- each dtd.10.10.2017, 25.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 in favour of the complainant bank and the complainant had presented the said cheques for encashment through its banker- HDFC Bank and the said cheques were dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" by memos dtd.30.11.2017, 01.12.2017, 04.12.2017, 05.12.2017 and 07.12.2017 as found in Ex.P7 to P11 as put up by the complainant. Further, from the contents of Ex.P12 to P14, it is clear that after dishonour of cheques as found in Ex.P7 to P11, the complainant bank got issued legal notice dtd.20.12.2017 as per Ex.P12 through registered post A.D to the accused on 21.12.2017 intimating the dishonour of the cheques and demanding the payment of the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It is clear from Ex.P14 that the said notice was duly served on the accused. The complainant has specifically contended that the said notice was served on the accused on 22.12.2017. The complainant presented the complaint before this court on 03.02.2018 i.e after lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice and within 30 days thereafter as required under law. Hence on perusal of these aspects, it is clear that the complainant bank had presented the cheques within its validity and got issued statutory notice to the accused within statutory time and filed 8 C.C. No.52135/2018 the complaint within the prescribed period as provided U/s.138 of N.I. Act.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Provisions Of The Companies Act. Having ... vs 2) Mr. Santosh D'Souza - Partner on 22 June, 2018

8. Point Nos. 1 and 2: Since these two points are inter linked and to avoid repetition they are taken together for discussion. As already stated in support of the claim of the complainant company, the P.A holder-cum-Sales Administrative Head of the complainant company in his sworn statement reiterated the complaint averments in toto which itself is treated as his examination-in-chief in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 - Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India and others - [W.P. (civil) No.18/2013]. In addition to that the representative of the complainant company has produced cheque dtd.29.01.2017, bank endorsements (2 in nos.) dtd.23.02.2017, office copy of the notice dtd.13.03.2017 (3 in nos.), three postal receipts dtd.13.03.2017 for having sent notice by RPAD to the accused persons and three postal acknowledgements for having service of notice on the accused persons as per Ex.P1 6 C.C. 52789/2017 to P12 respectively. The contents of Ex.P1 to P12 are analyzed, they clearly support the version of the complainant. The contents of Ex.P1 - cheque, bank endorsements i.e Ex.P2 and P3 reveal that the accused nos.2 & 3 being partners of accused no.1 firm had issued cheque dated 29.01.2017 for Rs.4,39,595/- drawn on Canara Bank, Mahila BKG branch, Jayanagar, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant company and the complainant company had presented the same for encashment on 22.02.2017 and the said cheque was returned dishonoured for the reason "funds insufficient" on 23.02.2017 as contended by the complainant. Further, from the contents of Ex.P4 to P12, it is clear that after dishonour of the cheque as found in Ex.P3, the complainant company itself issued notice dtd.13.03.2017 as per Ex.P4 to P6 to the accused nos.1 to 3 by RPAD intimating the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon them to pay the cheque amount with over due interest and bank charges. The said notice was served on the accused persons on 15.03.2017. The complainant presented the complaint on 24.04.2017 i.e after lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice on accused persons and within 30 days thereafter. Hence on perusal of these aspects, it is clear that the complainant had presented the cheque for encashment within its validity and got issued statutory notice to the accused persons within statutory time and filed the complaint within the prescribed period. Admittedly, the accused nos.1 to 3 had not complied with the demand made 7 C.C. 52789/2017 in the notice. Therefore, on going through these documents their remains no doubt that the complainant had complied with all the technical requirements of Sec.138 of N.I. Act in filing the present complaint. The accused have admitted the cheque. As already stated though the accused have put up their appearance through their counsel and denied the substance of acquisition, they have not opted to cross- examine CW.1 and thereby not opted to dispute the evidence placed on behalf of the complainant company. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of the complainant as to existence of legally recoverable debt and also issuance of cheque by the accused towards discharge of due amount in favour of the complainant company as put up by the complainant. The statutory presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is also in favour of the complainant. Hence, it is clear that the complainant has proved all the necessary ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act and thereby the commission of the offence punishable under the said section as contended.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. K.Sudha vs Sri.M.Maruthi on 1 December, 2021

21. Now to consider the impugned judgment in the reasoning portion at page No.5 of the judgment he has relied upon the ruling reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 - INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA and dispensed with the appearance of the accused. As observed earlier the learned Magistrate has not properly understood the ratio. The judgment which is passed in the absence of the accused by dispensing with the statement u/S 313 of CrPC cannot be said to be valid judgment.
Bangalore District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bengaluru - 560 025 vs Sri. K. Ramamanohar Reddy on 22 September, 2018

10. Point No. 1 : As already stated in support of the claim of the complainant company, the representative of the complainant company in his sworn statement reiterated the complaint averments in toto which itself is treated as examination-in-chief in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 - Indian Bank Association and others Vs Union of India and others - [W.P. (civil) No.18/2013]. In addition to that, the representative of the complainant has produced notarized copy of the power of attorney, ECS return memo dtd.21.07.2017 issued by Tech Process, office copy of the statutory notice dtd.31.07.2017, two postal acknowledgements for having service of the notice on the accused as per Ex.P1 to P5 respectively. The contents of Ex.P1 to P5 are analyzed, they clearly support the version of the complainant. The contents of Ex.P2 i.e ECS return memo reveal that the accused had issued ECS mandate to his banker - Karnataka Bank Ltd., for Rs.1,50,789/- which is to be credited in favour of he complainant company in ICICI Bank Ltd., and the same was dishonoured for the reason "stop payment by the drawer on 21.07.2017" which was communicated to the complainant by M/s.Tech Process Solutions Ltd as put up by the 7 C.C. No.52076/2018 complainant. Further, from the contents of Ex.P3 to P5, it is clear that after dishonour of ECS mandate as found in Ex.P2, the complainant company got issued legal notice dtd.31.07.2017 as per Ex.P3 through registered post A.D to the addresses of the accused intimating the dishonour of ECS mandate and demanding the payment of the said amount within 15 days. It is clear from Ex.P4 and P5 that the said notice was duly served on the accused on 02.08.2017 on both addresses. The complainant presented the present complaint before this court on 07.09.2017 i.e after lapse of 15 days from the date of service of notice and within 30 days thereafter as required under law. Hence on perusal of these aspects, it is clear that the complainant had presented the ECS mandate in question within its validity and got issued statutory notice to the accused within statutory time and filed the complaint within the prescribed period as provided U/s.25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next