Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)
M/S. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr vs M/S. National Panasonic India Ltd on 12 December, 2008 cites

State Of Punjab vs Amar Singh Harika on 6 January, 1966

"33. The decision of this Court in Khemi Ram [(1969) 3 SCC 28] relied upon by Mr. Bachawat is not apposite as therein an order of suspension was in question. This Court in the said decision itself referred to its decision in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika [AIR 1966 SC 1313], which stated that communication of an order dismissing an employee from service is imperative. If communication of an order for terminating the jural relationship is imperative, a fortiori it would also be imperative at the threshold."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 221 - Full Document

K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999

9. Reliance has been placed by both the learned Additional Sessions Judge as also the High Court on a decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr. [(1999) 7 SCC 510]. This Court opined that the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts, namely, (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It was opined that if five different acts were done in five different localities, any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the 7 place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and the complainant would be at liberty to file a complaint petition at any of those places. As regards the requirements of giving a notice as also receipt thereof by the accused, it was stated:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 3240 - Full Document
1   2 Next