Friday, September 3, 2010
Scheme of Arrangement Voting
Votes with conditions atached not to be counted - 2002 111 Comp Cas 118 (Guj)
Friday, August 27, 2010
Cheque bounce not for signature mismatch
Mustafa Surka - vs State Of Gujarat
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1874147/
11. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the endorsement that "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image found-signature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegible" and for return/dishonour of cheque on the above endorsement will not attract ingredients of Section 138 of the Act and insufficient fund as a ground for doshonouring cheque cannot be extended so as to cover the endorsement "signature differed from the specimen supplied" or likewise. If the cheque is returned/bounced/dishonoured on the endorsement of "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image found-signature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegible", the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. Hence, a case is made out to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioner.
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1874147/
11. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the endorsement that "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image found-signature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegible" and for return/dishonour of cheque on the above endorsement will not attract ingredients of Section 138 of the Act and insufficient fund as a ground for doshonouring cheque cannot be extended so as to cover the endorsement "signature differed from the specimen supplied" or likewise. If the cheque is returned/bounced/dishonoured on the endorsement of "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image found-signature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegible", the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. Hence, a case is made out to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioner.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Section 62 - Damages - Sale of Goods - Freedom to contract - conditions
MANU/GJ/0642/2004 - Suraj Enterprises
MANU/MH/0300/2000 - MSEB v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.
MANU/MH/0085/1958: AIR 1958 Bom 291.
MANU/KA/0020/1958 : AIR 1958 Kant 10 - KCN Gowda v. Molakram Tekchand
distinction between conditions implied by law and conditions provided by contract
MANU/MH/0300/2000 - MSEB v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.
MANU/MH/0085/1958: AIR 1958 Bom 291.
MANU/KA/0020/1958 : AIR 1958 Kant 10 - KCN Gowda v. Molakram Tekchand
distinction between conditions implied by law and conditions provided by contract
Appointment of Provisional Liquidator - Factors to be considered
Darshan Anilkumar Patel v. Gitaneel Hotel Pvt Ltd, [1994] 81 Comp Cases 805
Parallel Remedies - Stay of proceedings
Jai Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 898
a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.
See also:
Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 122
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120
Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, 2010 (3) BomCR 44
a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.
See also:
Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 122
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120
Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, 2010 (3) BomCR 44
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)