Blog - Page 671 of 1824

16 Dec

MERELY BECAUSE ONE WITNESS HAS TURNED HOSTILE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE PETITIONER TO SEEK BAIL SAYS: KARNATAKA HC

In the matter of Saddam Hussain @ Saddam vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9337 OF 2022) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR it is stated that This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.P., praying for extension of bail of the complainant in cr.no.125/2019 registered by police station Sampigehalli, Bengaluru for offense p/u/s 397, 302 and 201 read with 34 of the IPC, is pending before the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru in S.C.No.39/2020.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The simple case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2019 between 9.12 PM and 9.15 PM the appellant caused the death of one Gnanendra Reddy while committing robbery. Sri Manoj S N submits that CW1 to 9 are shown as eye witnesses. PW1 who is CW2 became hostile. The prosecution was unable to secure the presence of other witnesses. The petitioner has been in jail for the last 3 years and therefore may be released on bail subject to any strict conditions.

JUDGMENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR observed that

After hearing both sides, it can be concluded that merely because one witness has turned hostile does not entitle the petitioner to seek bail. While disposing of earlier bail petitions, prima facie materials are clearly held to be against the petitioner. At this stage, I do not find a changed circumstance for admitting the petitioner to bail. The hostility of one witness cannot be considered. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR

Click here to view the judgment

16 Dec

High Court denies pre-arrest bail as petitioner failed to prove genuineness of his GST payment: Gauhati High Court

Prime Legal

Blog

Gauhati High Court on 27/10/2021 decided that whatever papers submitted by the petitioner to prove the genuineness of his GST payment appears not only to be incorrect, but false also. This was seen in the matter of Faruk Alam Vs State of Assam, Appeal Number: AB/2211/2021, this matter was presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Hitesh Kumar Sarma.

FACTS OF THE CASE

This is an application under MD Faruk Alam Vs State of Assam , Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying for pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, namely, Md. Faruk Alam, in connection with Abhayapuri Police Station Case No. 456 of 2021, registered under Sections 379/468/420/411 of the IPC. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner & Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional PP, Assam for the Respondent State. The case diary produced has been perused including the order of this Court, dated 6^th October 2021. In accordance with the said order, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Bongaigaon, has reported that there is no record of the vehicle & there is also no proper document to support transportation of goods by the said vehicle as indicated by the petitioner in his petition as well as in the complaint.

JUDGEMENT

That being so, whatever papers submitted by the petitioner to prove the genuineness of his GST payment appears not only to be incorrect, but false also. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail made by the petitioner is rejected. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Return the case diary. The letter, dated 04-10-2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Bongaigaon, be kept in the record for future reference.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY YAKSHU JINDAL.

Click here to view Judgement.

15 Dec

There is nothing which the defendant has been able to demonstrate that there is any plausible defence to the unimpeachable claim of the plaintiff.: Calcutta High Court

Prime Legal

Blog

The above was opined by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anchor Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. TCI Finance Ltd IA No: GA/2/2019 in CS/133/2019 that was presided over by the Honourable Justice Krishna Rao on 8^th December 2022.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The instant application for a final judgement was submitted by the plaintiff, a decree against the defendant for Rs. 83,46,507/- according to the provisions of this Court’s Original Side Rules, Chapter XIIIA. Prior to the Ordinary, the plaintiff had initially brought the current lawsuit. After bringing the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a GA 5 of 2021 application, requesting the transfer of the immediate suit in addition to the ongoing requests before this Court (Commercial Division) in an order dated July 19, 2022, this Court has granted the request (a) to (c) of the call of the Master.

Additionally, the plaintiff had submitted a GA 2198 of 2019 application, but the aforementioned application was withdrawn by order dated November 26, 2019. watch order dt. 18.08.2020, the day the Ordinary Original of the action was filed with regard to the Civil Jurisdiction, the Court issued a temporary order defendant to provide security to the plaintiff in the amount of Rs. 83,46,507 satisfaction of the High Court’s Registrar within two weeks of the day the order was passed.

JUDGEMENT OF COURT

By admitting that the defendant had acknowledged an amount of Rs. 1 crore with the promise to return it with interest at a rate of 17% per annum and by a number of documents, the defendant had admitted that he would return the said amount, but the defendant had returned only an amount of Rs. 25,00,000 and had paid interest only twice; no additional interest has been paid. This Court had taken these documents into consideration in favour of the plaintiff. There is no proof that the defendant has paid the sum plus interest or that it is not owed to the plaintiff in any document.

Nothing that the defendant has been able to provide suggests that there is a credible defence to the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant is ordered by the court to pay the plaintiff Rs. 83,46,507 once admission is made.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SAYANTANI RAKSHIT

Click here to read the judgement

15 Dec

This Court finds that when the petitioner came to know about the suit, the petitioner has taken appropriate steps but the Learned Advocate had not appeared and not moved the application, the petitioner should not suffer from ex-parte-decree: Calcutta High Court

Prime Legal

Blog

The Calcutta High Court opined the above-mentioned in the case Chirantan Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Youdhister Kumar Dhanania, IA No. GA/2/2021 in CS/29/2016 before Honourable Justice Krishna Rao on 12^th December 2022.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, who is the defendant in CS 29 of 2016, submitted the current application in an effort to excuse the 411-day delay in preferring it and to have the ex parte judgement issued by this Court in CS 29 of 2016 revoked or set aside.

According to the petitioner’s attorney, the plaintiff/attorney respondent had informed the petitioner of the related ex parte ruling by the court. Petitioner’s attorney claims that the court’s order discloses that the summons sent to the petitioner by mail was returned unclaimed, and the bailiff was unable to serve the petitioner because the petitioner was not present at the address.

The petitioner’s attorney claims that the respondent was aware of the petitioner’s application, GA 2395 of 2019 because the same GA was listed alongside CS 29 of 2016 on 07.11.2019. The petitioner’s attorney claims that despite knowing the facts, the respondent concealed them and secured an ex parte ruling.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

In the current instance, the court determines that although the petitioner took the necessary actions after learning of the lawsuit, the advocate did not show up and did not make a motion, thus the petitioner should not be subject to an ex-parte ruling. Due to those mentioned above, the ex parted judgement and decree from November 7, 2019, is overturned. CS No. 29 of 2016 is returned to its original file with the condition that the respondent pay costs in the amount of Rs. 10,000 within a week of the date; otherwise, the judgement and decree from November 7, 2019, will stand.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SAYANTANI RAKSHIT

Click here to read the judgement

15 Dec

THE FIR DISCLOSES THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT’S SON WAS NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY IN THE GROUND BECAUSE OF HIS CASTE. POLITICAL RIVALRY IS JUST A DEFENCE PROJECTED BY THE APPELLANT AT THIS STAGE, WHICH REQUIRES INVESTIGATION SAYS: KARNATAKA HC

Prime Legal

Blog

In the matter of Ganesha L D vs State By on 23 November, 2022 (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1816 OF 2022) presided by the hon’ble justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar stated that This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [in short “SC/ST Act”, challenging the correctness of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge , Chitradurga in Crl.Misc.No.1053/2022, by which he rejected the applicant’s application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with crime No. 181/2022 registered by the 1st defendant police for offenses punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC and § 3 para. 1 letter r) (s) of the SC/ST Act as amended by Section 34 of the IPC.

FACT OF THE CASE

FIR was registered on 15.09.2022 at 09.30pm, in relation to an incident dated 14.09.2022. The allegation is that when the second respondent’s son went to the playground of the High School of the village, the appellant herein and another accused, namely, Abhishek, did not allow him to play. It is alleged that because the second respondent’s son belonged to the ‘Nayaka’ community, the appellant and the another accused said that he should not play there. There is another allegation that the appellant and another accused assaulted the second respondent’s son severely causing severe injuries and then threatened to kill him.

JUDGMENT

the hon’ble justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar observed I have read the impugned order and also the FIR. The FIR states that the second respondent’s son was not allowed to play on the ground because of his caste. Political rivalry is only the defense projected by the petitioner in this regard a stage that requires investigation. It cannot be concluded that the false complaint was filed against the petitioner against the background of political rivalry. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is very applicable to a circumstance like this. The court below is entitled to reject the application. I find no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is rejected.

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR

Click here to view the judgment Ganesha

1 … 669 670 671 672 673 … 1,824