Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Muneev Ur Rehman vs Taufiq Ur Rehman on 19 December, 2017 cites

Rajesh Agarwal vs State & Anr. on 28 July, 2010

11. Once specific order listing the matter for defence evidence was passed by Learned Trial Court on 11.01.2017, there was no justification to wait if at all the petitioner wanted to challenge order dated 11.01.2017. It is also to be noted that the order passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on Muneev ur Rehman vs Taufiq ur Rehman  Page no 6 of 11 CR 338/17 11.01.2017  is in  accordance  with   the   directions  given  by Hon'ble  Supreme Court in  Indian Bank Association case (supra)  and by Hon'ble Delhi High Court   in  Rajesh   Aggarwal   case   (supra).  Therefore,   on   the   ground   of limitation as well as on merit, the prayer of the petitioner against order dated 11.01.2017 is liable to be rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1100 - S N Dhingra - Full Document

Harpreet Singh vs State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 14 January, 2015

In support of his arguments, Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment by  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of  Harpreet Singh vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and anr. 2015 Lawsuit (Del) 79 and he has also relied upon judgment by Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Indian   Bank   Association   and   others   vs   Union   of   India   (UOI)   and   ors. MANU/SC/1391/2013   which   was   cited   at   bar   by   Learned   counsel   for   the respondent.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - V P Vaish - Full Document

Ripen Kumar vs Department Of Customs on 12 October, 2000

12. Now, I come to order dated 21.08.2017, whereby the application of the accused u/s 145 (2) NI Act was dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent   has   not   disputed   that   revision   is   maintainable   against   order passed on an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act. The provision u/s 145 (2) NI Act appears like the provision u/s 311 Cr. PC, however, there is difference in two provisions. When the accused makes an application u/s 145 (2) NI act, he seeks  recall  of a  witness, whose  pre­summoning  evidence  on  affidavit  has been adopted as post­summoning evidence. The evidence was not recorded in   presence   of   the   accused   and   the   first   opportunity   for   him   to   have   the examination i.e. the examination of the witnesses of the complainant in his presence   is   after   framing   of   the   notice.   Section   145   (2)   NI   Act   deals   with valuable right of the accused and therefore, revision against order passed on an  application  u/s 145(2) NI Act would be  maintainable  in view of law  laid down   by   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   in   the   matter   of  Ripen   Kumar   vs Department   of   Customs  (2000)   88   DLT   541   though,   revision   is   not Muneev ur Rehman vs Taufiq ur Rehman  Page no 7 of 11 CR 338/17 maintainable   against   an   order   passed   u/s   311   Cr.   PC   as   held   by   Hon'ble Supreme   Court   in   the   matter   of  Sethuraman   vs   Rajamanickam  (2009)   5 SCC 153.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 141 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009

12. Now, I come to order dated 21.08.2017, whereby the application of the accused u/s 145 (2) NI Act was dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent   has   not   disputed   that   revision   is   maintainable   against   order passed on an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act. The provision u/s 145 (2) NI Act appears like the provision u/s 311 Cr. PC, however, there is difference in two provisions. When the accused makes an application u/s 145 (2) NI act, he seeks  recall  of a  witness, whose  pre­summoning  evidence  on  affidavit  has been adopted as post­summoning evidence. The evidence was not recorded in   presence   of   the   accused   and   the   first   opportunity   for   him   to   have   the examination i.e. the examination of the witnesses of the complainant in his presence   is   after   framing   of   the   notice.   Section   145   (2)   NI   Act   deals   with valuable right of the accused and therefore, revision against order passed on an  application  u/s 145(2) NI Act would be  maintainable  in view of law  laid down   by   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   in   the   matter   of  Ripen   Kumar   vs Department   of   Customs  (2000)   88   DLT   541   though,   revision   is   not Muneev ur Rehman vs Taufiq ur Rehman  Page no 7 of 11 CR 338/17 maintainable   against   an   order   passed   u/s   311   Cr.   PC   as   held   by   Hon'ble Supreme   Court   in   the   matter   of  Sethuraman   vs   Rajamanickam  (2009)   5 SCC 153.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 437 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd vs Nimesh B.Thakore on 11 January, 2010

In  Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Nimesh B. Thakore  (2010) 3 SCC 83 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act is moved, the Court has to recall   the   complainant   and   his   witnesses   for   cross­examination.   Learned counsel for respondent also submitted that when an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act is moved, Learned Trial Court has no discretion and the complainant has to be recalled for cross­examination. However, he submitted that the right of the accused to seek recall of the complainant for cross­examination has to be exercised when the notice u/s 251 Cr. PC is framed. According to Learned counsel for the respondent, the application cannot be entertained and is not maintainable once the matter has been adjourned for defence evidence. The issue whether Learned Trial Court has discretion to allow or not to allow the application u/s 145 (2) NI Act is not before me and therefore, I will not deal with the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 437 - A Alam - Full Document

All India Vijaya Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 November, 2001

In  Indian   Bank   Association   case   (supra),   Hon'ble   Supreme Court has given the directions which are to be followed by the trial Courts while trying matters u/s 138 NI Act and the directions are in para 20 of the judgment. Direction (4) provides that after framing of the notice u/s 251 Cr. PC to enable the accused to enter his plea of defence, the case should be fixed for defence evidence unless an application u/s 145 (2) NI Act is moved for recalling a witness for cross­examination. In the same judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in para 18 that the power u/s 145 (2) NI Act can be exercised by the trial Court on an application of the accused or suo­ moto. Here  we  are  not  concerned  with  suo­moto  exercise  of the  power by Learned   Trial   Court.   If   the   petitioner   wanted   to   cross­examine   the complainant/respondent, the application u/s 145 (2) NI Act had to be moved. Admittedly, the application was not moved when the notice u/s 251 Cr. PC was framed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1