Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Through : Sh. Jitender Shankar vs . on 10 February, 2015 cites

State Bank Of Travancore vs M/S Kingston Computers(I) P.Ltd on 22 February, 2011

14. 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. The present complaint was filed by Sh. C. B. CC No:­ 28/08 Police Station:­ Darya Ganj BYPL Vs. Wasim 14 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. Most importantly, Sh. C. B. Sharma, officer of the company, who had filed this complaint and mentioned in the list of witnesses was not examined in the court either, so the complaint Ex. CW­1/B remains unproved on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 164 - Full Document

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Sunheri & Anr. on 20 July, 2012

As per complaint, pre - summoning evidence and depositions of witnesses examined in the court, mentioned that photographs videography was conducted by member of raiding team, but none of the witnesses deposed that who actually took the same. The person who actually took the photographs was not examined by the company. 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.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 97 - A K Pathak - Full Document

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Ruggan on 22 March, 2012

10. The company was under obligation to prove as to who was in the actual possession of the inspected premises at the time of inspection. The company failed to prove that it was accused Wasim or Wasi Akhtar who was the user of the premises. So, as per recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Crl.A.No. 816/2010 decided on 22.03.2012 titled as BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd Vs. Ruggan, the accused did not fall within the ambit of "WHOEVER" as enumerated U/S 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in this case also judgment of trial court was affirmed acquitting the accused on the aforesaid count.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 43 - S K Kait - Full Document

Krishnan And Anr vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 28 July, 2003

11. As per Regulation 52 (Vii) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations 2007 "in case of direct theft of electricity licensee shall file the complaint within 2 days in the designated Special Court. The complaint in the present case was filed on 08.01.2008 after about 3 months of inspection. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all CC No:­ 28/08 Police Station:­ Darya Ganj BYPL Vs. Wasim 12 its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal to prosecution case (Krishnan Vs. State AIR 2003 SC 2978).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 75 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1