Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)
Shashikant G. Badani vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 17 June, 2004 cites

Mohansingh Laxmansingh vs Bhanwarlal Rajmal Nahata And Ors. on 14 February, 1963

In Mohansingh v. Bhanwarlal AIR 1964 SC 1366 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that "the onus of establishing corrupt practice is undoubtedly on the person who sets it up and the onus is not discharged on proof of mere preponderance of probability as in the trial of a civil suit: the corrupt practice must be established beyond reasonable doubt by evidence which is clear and unambiguous..." The same principle has been endorsed in Razikram v. J.S. Chowhan AIR 1975 SC 667 which is also an election petition as in the case of Mohansingh v. Bhanwarlal. The learned counsel wanted to argue on the basis of these cases that even in civil proceedings when a charge like fraud or corruption is levelled, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probability.We find however that in all these 3 cases the dispute was between two parties and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only enunciated the well-known principle of juris prudence that a charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the party setting up the charge. In the present case, the charge has been levelled by the official regulator of the Union of India in due discharge of its duties.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963

Both in Union of India v. H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364 and Nandkishor Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1978 SC 1277, it has been held that "the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules." However, on the standard of proof the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence i.e. evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take place of proof even in domestic enquiries." In fact the decision in Nandkishore rested specifically on the issue "whether the impugned orders did not raise any evidence whatever but merely on suspicion, conjuncture and surmise" and the appeal failed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 905 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S.Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co. And Vice ... on 9 December, 1975

The only case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant that can possibly be considered coming close to his line of argument is Union of India v. Chaturbhai N. Patel & Co. AIR 1976 SC 712 wherein it has been observed that "fraud like any other charge of a criminal offence whether made in civil or criminal proceedings must be established beyond reasonable doubt ... However suspicious may be the circumstances, however strange the coincidences and however grave the doubts, suspicion can never take the place of proof." On a closer reading of the full context of the judgment, however, we find that these observations were in a different context altogether. In this case, Chaturbhai Patel was not charged with or tried for fraud. In fact it was his firm which had filed a suit for damages against the Union of India on the allegation that due to the negligence of Indian Railways the goods dispatched by them did not reach the consignee at Gaya but identical goods (Tobacco) of inferior type reached there causing them losses.The UOI contested the suit mainly on the ground that due to fraud and collusion between Chaturbahi at Banaras and his father's firm in Gujarat the consignment at Banaras was interchanged by manipulation so that inferior goods were sent to Gaya and the superior goods were sent to Gujarat which were sold by his firm at Gujarat at a huge profit. It was under these circumstances that the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the defence plea of a fraud was not backed by conclusive or reliable evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 45 - S M Ali - Full Document

Delux Land Organizers vs The State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 22 August, 1990

In the Deluxe Land Organisers case, the Central Government had issued a circular asking the State governments to grant exemptions from certain provisions of Urban Land (Sealing and Regulation) Act, 1976 in case of undue hardship. While granting such exemptions, the State of Gujarat imposed some penalties and it was held that this being a central legislation, the State Government had no powers to impose penalties while implementing the Central Government direction for granting exemptions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ksl And Industries Ltd. vs The Chairman, The Securities And ... on 30 September, 2003

4. KSL & Industries v. SEBI in support of his argument that the orders of penal nature could not be passed in exercise of powers vested under Section 11B of the SEBI Act, as it then existed. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the common orders passed by this Tribunal on October 27, 2003 in appeal nos. 15 to 19/2003 wherein this Tribunal, before its conversion into a multi-member Tribunal had clarified the position in respect of the earlier cases as cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also been informed that while the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are in appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court those cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and no interim orders have been passed. We would therefore like to refrain from discussing these cases any further.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next