Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)
Sajitha vs Shree Thiruvangad Chits Pvt. Ltd on 9 September, 2010 cites

M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Ors on 27 August, 2001

(iv) It is also made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to seek exemption under Sec.205 of the Cr.P.C in which case the trial court will consider and pass appropriate orders on the same, in the light of the legal principles well settled in that regard in the decision report in Reddy v. Excel Glasses Ltd. reported in 2010 (3) KLT SN 11 (Case No.14) as well as the judgments in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Dhiwani Denim & Apparel Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 384 - Full Document

All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991

6. The Apex Court in the case in Indian Bank Association and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC Crl.M.C.No.3665 of 2017 : 5 : 590 as held in para.23.3 of the said judgment that the trial court may indicate in the summons for offences involving Sec.138 of the NI Act that the accused makes an application of compounding offence in the first hearing of the case and if such an application is made, the court may pass appropriate orders expeditiously etc. Therefore, all efforts should be taken by the trial court, the appellate court, the revisional court etc. in matters involving offences under Sec.138 of the NI Act to facilitate the settlement between the parties. In the instant case, the petitioner has agitated the issue since June 2015 by filing of the earlier petition as per Crl.M.C.No.4743/2015 and the first respondent complainant did not co-operate with the due resolution of the issues in that case which led to the final disposal of the matter on 10.04.2017. Even now, the first respondent has not bothered to appear before this Court in spite of due service of notice on that party and in spite of the fact that this Court had noted the offer made by the petitioner about her willingness to pay off the amount already due under the dishonoured cheque. Even though the petitioner has sought reasonable and fair approach in this matter, the first respondent Chit Company is not even bothered to appear before this Court even to accept the moneys deposited by the accused. Petitioner has made out a strong case on the basis of Annexure-II Karar dated 8.3.2013, wherein the respondent Chit Company has conceded that more moneys are owed to the petitioner's husband. Both the petitioner and Crl.M.C.No.3665 of 2017 : 6 : her husband were subscribers of various chits run by the Chit Company. Petitioner has produced medical certificate to show that she is suffering from epilepsy. Therefore this Court is of the view that any further prolongation of the trial in spite of the reasonable offer made by the petitioner would amount to causing grave harassment and injustice to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that payment for the principal amount covered by the cheque to the complainant Company will be more than sufficient in the interest of justice. Since the first respondent has shown such a recalcitrant attitude in both the two rounds of litigations, this Court is constrained to take a view that such respondent Chit Company need not be given any interest on the principal amount. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in the complaint which led to the institution of S.T.No.6366/2010, pending before the trial court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 761 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

V.S.Reddy vs M/S.Excel Glasses Ltd on 4 March, 2010

(iv) It is also made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to seek exemption under Sec.205 of the Cr.P.C in which case the trial court will consider and pass appropriate orders on the same, in the light of the legal principles well settled in that regard in the decision report in Reddy v. Excel Glasses Ltd. reported in 2010 (3) KLT SN 11 (Case No.14) as well as the judgments in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Dhiwani Denim & Apparel Ltd.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 19 - P S Gopinathan - Full Document
1