Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Vinod Kumar Bhutani vs State Thr. Cbi on 28 May, 2013

Officer Nic vs Mohamed Haji Latif on 20 December, 2013

In this regard, reference can be made to judgment, dt. 28-5-2013 of the Hon'ble High Court in Anil CBI Case No. 31/12 39 of 47 Maheshwari Vs. CBI (Supra). From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution through various officers/officials of NIC, it is clear that in case of any marine claim, the survey regarding damage to the consignment, tracing the consignment and verification of documents was being done by empanelled surveyors/tracers/verifiers and the officers of the insurance company were relying upon their reports to process and sanction the claim. PW2 Sh A.K. Seth during his cross examination stated they had not specifically pointed out in Ex. PW1/A that M.L. Mathur or Y.P. Babbar did commit any specific irregularity or dereliction of duty. PW3 Sh A.K. Tiwari during his cross examination stated that they did not find any dereliction of duty or violation of the conduct or rules of practice in passing of claim by Sh Moti Lal Mathur and Yash Pal Babbar by and large. He further stated that there has been no violation of any rule or procedure in issuance of Policy No. 4500297 to Kochhar Trading Company. It is well settled that negligence/ dereliction in the performance of duty is different from dishonest act done in the performance of duty. To prove a dishonest or fraudulent act, prosecution has to lead some positive evidence.
Delhi District Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re vs Moti Lal Mathur on 20 December, 2013

In this regard, reference can be made to judgment, dt. 28-5-2013 of the Hon'ble High Court in Anil Maheshwari Vs. CBI (Supra). From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution through various officers/officials of NIC, it is clear that in case of any marine claim, the survey regarding damage to the consignment, tracing the consignment and verification of documents was being done by empanelled surveyors/tracers/verifiers and the officers of the insurance company were relying upon their reports to process and sanction the claim. PW 2 Shri A.K. Seth, during his cross examination on behalf of accused No.1, stated that they had not specifically pointed out in Ex. PW1/A that M.L. Mathur or Y.P. Babbar committed any specific irregularity or dereliction of duty. PW 3 Shri A.K. Tiwari, during his cross examination deposed that the procedure adopted in passing the claim of Vinayak Enterprises appeared to be in routine and they did not find any fault in it. PW 11 Anupam Rai Gupta, who has prepared the claim note, during his cross examination on behalf of accused No.1 Moti Lal Mathur admitted that he had made recommendations which as per the record and as per his understanding of the papers and procedures, he found fit and reasonable. With respect to the claim note, he was not pressurized by anyone. He had prepared these notes in a routine manner during the course of his duties. From the aforesaid, it is considered that the prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to show that accused No.1 Moti Lal Mathur was a party to the conspiracy to cheat NIC.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Yash Pal Babbar on 20 December, 2013

In this regard, reference can be made to judgment, dt. 28-05-2013 of the Hon'ble High Court in Anil Maheshwari Vs. CBI (Supra). From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution through various officers/officials of NIC, it appears that in case of any marine claim, the survey regarding damage to the consignment, tracing the consignment and verification of documents was being done by empanelled surveyors/tracers/verifiers and the officers of the insurance company were relying upon their reports to process and sanction the claim.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ex.Dw1/A vs Mohamed Haji Latif on 20 December, 2013

In this regard, reference can be made to judgment, dt. 28-5-2013 of the Hon'ble High Court in Anil Maheshwari Vs. CBI (Supra). From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution through various officers/officials of NIC, it is clear that in case of any marine claim, the survey regarding damage to the consignment, tracing the consignment and verification of documents was being done by empanelled surveyors/tracers/verifiers and the officers of the insurance company were relying upon their reports to process and sanction the claim. PW 2 Shri A.K. Seth, during his cross examination on behalf of accused No. 2, Moti Lal Mathur stated that they had not specifically pointed out in Ex. PW1/A that Moti Lal Mathur or Yash Pal Babbar committed any specific irregularity or dereliction of duty. PW4 Sh Vinod Kumar during his cross examination on behalf of accused No. 1 Y.P. Babbar stated that he could not say whether there was any irregularity or illegality in the process note Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. He admitted that accused Y.P. Babbar has done the job in his routine work on the basis of the process note. From the aforesaid, it is considered that the prosecution has not been able to lead any evidence to show that accused No.1 Yash Pal Babbar or accused No. 2 Moti Lal Mathur were party to conspiracy to cheat NIC.
Delhi District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pw 19/B vs Mohamed Haji Latif on 20 December, 2013

13.2 Prosecution has led evidence and Ld. PP has advanced argument to the effect that complete documents required for processing and settlement of claim are not available in the claim file which shows that the claim has been fraudulently obtained. Ld. Defence counsels contend that the complete chain of handing over of record has not been proved and thus absence of any document in the claim file is of no relevenace. It is pertinent to note that the claim files were the record of DO-XIII, NIC. The officer of DO- XIII from whose custody, the said files were seized for the first time has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that complete record, as available at the time of sanction of claim, was seized. Further, no inventory of the documents available in the claim files was prepared, and the record seized was also not sealed either at the time of their seizure by the officers of Regional Office of NIC or by the IO. Thus, no sanctity of preservation of documents seized was maintained. Therefore, the above contention of Ld. PP is not tenable. In this regard, a reference can also be made to the judgment dated 28-05-2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.1455/2012, Anil Maheshwari v/s CBI.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next