Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 385 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs Jagdeeshan on 15 January, 2002

Asad Raza vs U.S. Handicrafts on 25 August, 2022

11. Keeping in view the object of the legislation as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs Mukesh Kumar (supra), the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding imposition of adequate sentence for such offences in the cases of Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan and H. Pukhraj v. D. Parasmal (supra) as well as the fact that the cheque amount in the present case is Rs. 90,80,000/-, the sentence imposed by the Ld. Trial Court including the default sentence on account of failure to make payment of the compensation amount, in the opinion of this Court, is inadequate. The impugned order dated 08.02.2021 on sentence is therefore set aside and the following sentence is imposed upon the respondent:-
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar vs The State And Ors on 25 January, 2024

10. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court has convicted accused under Section 138 NI Act and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and has also directed to pay fine of Rs.8,00,000/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till date of judgment. Therefore, for the period for which accused has allegedly delayed the matter, he has been burdened to pay interest @ 9% per annum. Further, it has been directed by Ld. Trial Court that in case, the accused fails to pay fine within 30 days, the convict/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Therefore, I am of the opinion that CR No. 91/23 Lalit Kumar Vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 6 relying upon the judgment of "Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan (supra), Ld. Trial Court has passed appropriate sentence.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharam Singh Korram vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2022

In Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan , reported in AIR 2002 SC 681, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that it is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the apex Court on the ground that Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts, it is the mandate of the Constitution as provided in Article 141 of the Constitution that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramautar Porte vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2022

In Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan , reported in AIR 2002 SC 681, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that it is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the apex Court on the ground that Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts, it is the mandate of the Constitution as provided in Article 141 of the Constitution that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangal Sai vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2022

In Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan , reported in AIR 2002 SC 681, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that it is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the apex Court on the ground that Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts, it is the mandate of the Constitution as provided in Article 141 of the Constitution that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next