Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 52 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Sunheri & Anr. on 20 July, 2012
12. As per PW 1 Sh. R. P. Aggarwal videography was taken
at site by Sh. Prahlad from M/s Arora Photo Studio, however name of
this person was not mentioned in the complaint or in the list of
witnesses. As per the recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court in
2012 (4) JCC 2713 titled as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs.
Sunheri & Ors . , the non production of the photographer was held to
be fatal to the case of the company.
Section 135 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Sahib Singh vs State Of Haryana on 28 July, 1997
However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is
always fatal to prosecution case (Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana
AIR 1997 SC 3247.
State Bank Of Travancore vs M/S Kingston Computers(I) P.Ltd on 22 February, 2011
17. The present complaint was filed by Sh. C. B. Sharma
stated to be authorized representative of company but later on, other
authorized representative were substituted to pursue this complaint.
The minutes of the board authorizing Sh. Arun Kanchan C.E.O of the
company to authorize any of the officer of the company to file or
represent the complaint were not proved by the company. As per
recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank
of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers (I) P.Ltd. III (2011) SLT 53,
the letter of authority issued by the C.E.O of the company, was
nothing but a scrap of paper. Such an authority is not recognized
under law, as such complaint was not instituted by an authorized
person. Most importantly, Sh. C. B. Sharma, officer of the company,
who had filed this complaint was not cited as a witness in the
complaint. He was not examined in the court either, so the complaint
Ex. CW 2/A remains unproved on record.
1