Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 258 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004
On behalf of the non applicant/respondent, it is
stated that the order of the trial court calls for no
interference and it is a reasoned order and ld. Trial Court
66
has correctly by applying the ratio of the law laid down in
the cases of Adalat Parsad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & Others
(2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanian Seturaman Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2004 Cr. L.J 4609 had held that the trial court
cannot recall its summoning order being an interlocutory
order and neither is the accused entitled to a discharge in
a summons case.
Asia Metal Corporation (Huf) vs State And Anr. [Along With Crl Rev P No. ... on 19 May, 2006
In the judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi reported in the case of Asia Metal
Corporation Vs. State & Anr. 130 (2006) DLT 545, the
Hon'ble High Court while relying upon the ratio of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Subramaniam Seturaman (2004) CCR 32 Volume IV had held that
there is no question of discharge under Chapter XX of the
Cr.P.C in so far as summons case which has been instituted
upon a complaint is concerned; the issuance of summons for
attendance marks the end of the pre summoning stage and the
case then has to be dealt with under Chapter XX which deals
with trial of summons cases by Magistrates; at this stage
the Magistrate is not required to further apply his mind as
to whether the case has to be proceeded with or not against
69
the accused and what is required under Section 251 of the
Cr.P.C is that the substance of the accusation is to be
stated and the accused is to be asked whether he pleads
guilty or has any defence and it is also not necessary to
frame a formal charge and none of the provisions of Chapter
XX speak of any possibility of discharge. The Hon'ble High
Court has further noted that the question of the discharge
amounting to an acquittal is of no consequence because
discharge itself is not permissible under the law and
therefore the consideration of the interpretation of
Section 258 of the Cr.P.C would also not be necessary.
Kusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. And Ors on 23 February, 2000
In the body of the revision petition it is stated
that the complainant/respondent Hi Tech Carbon had filed a
complaint against the present petitioner i.e Ralson Carbon
Black under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
2
for dishonour of a cheque dated 08.02.05 for Rs.3,35,630/-
which had been returned unpaid vide return memo dated
20.5.05 with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangements"; statutory
notice dated 27.5.05 had thereafter been issued. It is
stated that on 09.10.07 i.e. the date fixed for framing of
notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C, the petitioner had appeared
before the Trial Court and moved an application praying for
dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the same is
not maintainable on account of the petitioner company having
been declared sick under the provisions of the Sick
Industrial Companies Act (SICA) 1985 vide order dated
30.7.03 and in view of the provisions under Section 22 (1)
of the said Act the complaint was not maintainable. The
petitioner had relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in
the case of M/S Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd Vs. Pennar
Securities Ltd & Others reported in 2001 (1) JCC SC 170 as
also another judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported in
the case of Ajit Sarin & Anr. Vs. M/S Auto Tension Ltd & Anr
2002 (2) JCC 480 (Delhi) to support his submissions. It is
stated that the application of the petitioner dated 09.10.07
was not decided on the said date and the court instead
proceeded to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C against
the petitioner illegally and against the procedure by not
deciding the application of the petitioner in the first
instance and adjourned the hearing of the application to
01.12.07 on which date the impugned order was passed.
Krystal Poly Fab Ltd. And Ors. vs Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. on 30 August, 2007
In the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
reported in the case of Krystal Poly Fab Ltd & Ors Vs. Indo
Rama Synthetics India Ltd 143 (2007) DLT 523, while
detailing the order of BIFR in that case and which had
permitted the company to rotate its current assets in the
normal course of business had held that since the company
was permitted to carry out its business transactions, there
was no embargo on the company or its Director to deal with
71
the movable assets of the company or to deal with the funds
lying to the credit of the company and as such the
petitioners could not evade their liability in respect of
cheques issued by them.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1