Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.47 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
Secondly, the registered office of the Complainant is at
Mumbai, the notice was issued from Mumbai and further
the credit facilities were also sanctioned from Mumbai
and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan &
Anr. Reportedin 1999 (4) ALL MR 452 and also the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Preetha Babu v. Voltas Ltd. and Ors., the judgment of the
Bombay High Court dated 3rd February, 2010 in Criminal
lgc 12 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2019 22:41:59 :::
(909) wp-3362.19&ors.odt
Application No. 3158 of 2010 and judgment of the Apex
Court in Samshad Begum v. B. Mohammed, reported in
AIR2009 SC 1355, the Bombay Court, therefore, will have
jurisdiction to try and decide the case. Lastly, it was
argued that the provisions of section 202 of the Cr.P.C.
have not been applied to the present case.
Shamshad Begum vs B.Mohammed on 3 November, 2008
Secondly, the registered office of the Complainant is at
Mumbai, the notice was issued from Mumbai and further
the credit facilities were also sanctioned from Mumbai
and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan &
Anr. Reportedin 1999 (4) ALL MR 452 and also the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Preetha Babu v. Voltas Ltd. and Ors., the judgment of the
Bombay High Court dated 3rd February, 2010 in Criminal
lgc 12 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2019 22:41:59 :::
(909) wp-3362.19&ors.odt
Application No. 3158 of 2010 and judgment of the Apex
Court in Samshad Begum v. B. Mohammed, reported in
AIR2009 SC 1355, the Bombay Court, therefore, will have
jurisdiction to try and decide the case. Lastly, it was
argued that the provisions of section 202 of the Cr.P.C.
have not been applied to the present case.
Bansilal S.Kabra vs Global Trade Finance Ltd. on 12 February, 2015
This Court in
the case of Bansilal S.Kabra vs. Global Trade Finance Ltd.
& Anr., decided on 9th July, 2010and 29th July, 2010
passed in Criminal Application No.1344 of 2010, has held
that the said provision is directory and not mandatory. In
another judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this
Court wherein it has been held that the said provision is
mandatory. However, the Learned Single Judge in the said
case was pleased to decide the said case, however,
proceeded to consider the cases wherein the accused had
come to the Court at a belated stage and was pleased to
reject such applications which were filed in the High
Court on the said ground. Therefore, merely because the
issue has been referred to the Full Bench, it does not
mean that all such cases wherein such issue is raised
should be stayed."
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004
The Apex Court, in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman
v. State of Maharashtra, (para16, Nikumbh Dairy Products
ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (para 9) and in respect of
prosecution under other sections in the case of Ratilal
Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR
1979 Supreme Court 94 and in the case of Nandkishor
Rampal Lohiya and others v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2001 Cri. L.J. 2742 has held that the High
Court should not ordinarily interfere in its inherent
jurisdiction after the plea is recorded and the recording of
evidence has commenced. On this ground alone, in my
view, it will not be possible to interfere with the order of
issuance of process. However, since both the parties
argued the matters on these points at length, it is
necessary to briefly consider the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners.