Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.37 seconds)
Judge vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited Held That on 29 March, 2010 cites

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. And Anr. on 12 March, 2007

In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgment reported in a case entitled as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr. 138 (2007) DLT 679, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that 23 respondent no.2 was merely licensee of petitioner to sell petrol as dealer of petitioner to the petitioner is a principal agent selling petrol on petrol pump and petrol pump belongs to the petitioner. If adulterated petrol or less petrol sold to customers by tampering with pump meter or electricity stolen, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to do regular inspection and keep check on petrol pump. Petitioner cannot wash off its hands saying it has nothing to do with petrol pump once it gave license. Petitioner has not stated of taking any action against respondent no.2 when it discovered theft of electricity to the extent that meter was slow by more than 80%. That shows electricity stolen either with connivance of petitioner or consent of petitioner. Where, theft of electricity done at premises of principal agent by licensee and principal agent is keeping its eyes closed to theft or other similar things done by licensee, charge of abatement of offence prima facie made out. Abatement is not only done by positive act but abatement can also be done by omission to do positive act by one who is responsible to act. Power U/sec. 482 Cr.P.C to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases, therefore, complaint not liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 24 - S N Dhingra - Full Document

Sodhi Transport Co. & Anr. Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 March, 1986

''...The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact....'' In the case of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported as AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1099, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 176 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 Next