Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs State & Ors. on 28 January, 2009
Ld trial court is directed to follow the procedure as set out in judgment
as relied upon 2010 (3) JCC (NI) 273 titled as Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and
CA No. 35/11 8/9
Ors and fresh notice be framed against the appellant/accused u/s 251 of Cr.PC
and further procedure be followed as set out in the judgment.
Respondent/complainant be also given liberty to rectify the defect regarding his
authorization from the Board of Directors. Ld Trial Court is also directed to
dispose of the case within six months if possible, as per its diary.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Kamala S vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr on 20 February, 2007
Ld Counsel has further relied upon Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2007
(arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3410 of 2006) decided on 20.02.2007 titled as
Kamala S. Vs Vidhyadharan M.J. And Anr, wherein it has been held that, "
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006
Ld Counsel has also relied upon on Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 1999,
decided on 04/07/2006 titled as M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of
Kerala and Anr, Wherein it has been held that "evidence adduced itself by parties
before trial Court, leading to one conclusion that appellant able to discharge his
initial burden then it shifted to complainant to prove his case, but if complainant
failed to do so then such defence could be accepted as probable."
The Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand on 16 December, 1997
In respect of the submissions of Ld counsel for appellant that the
director of the respondent who has filed the affidavit in evidence, is not duly
authorized person as neither it has come in the complaint nor any Board of
resolution has been produced before the Court, it has been held in M.M.T.C. Ltd Vs
M/s Medchat Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd 2002 (1) JCC 15 wherein the judgment
Associated Cement Co Ltd Vs Keshvanand (1998) 1 SCC 687 was relied upon in
which it has been held that "it is open to the de jure complainant company to seek
permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in
CA No. 35/11 6/9
the Court. Thus, even presuming that initially there was no authority, still the
Company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the Company
can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaints
could thus not have been quashed on this ground." so the contention of Ld counsel
is not tenable in any manner and on this ground, complaint cannot be dismissed as
the defect of duly authorised person by passing Board of resolution can be
rectified by the company at any stage.
Gurpreet Singh vs M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. on 2 August, 2010
Complainant was also directed to file the affidavit and matter was fixed
for complainant's evidence again and again and vide order dated 25/11/10, Ld Trial
Court observed that there is no necessity to continue complainant's evidence and
in view of section 145(1) of N.I. Act and further relying upon judgment filed i.e.
Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and also relying upon Gurpreet Vs Ranbaxy, accused
was directed to lead defence evidence and on 18/12/10, defence evidence of
accused was closed.