DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
11 November 2008 at 16:04
There is a criminal case against the Dena bank and its officers for destruction of evidence and conspiracy.
For Dena bank to whom the process should be served.
Surender Dhull
09 November 2008 at 20:41
Accused No. 1 is Co. through its one director, remaining two accused impleaded as accused No. 2 and 3 by the complainant CO. Most interesting that accused No. 1 is the CO. through its one director (means 3rd director except acuused No. 2 and 3)
Further the trial court held guilty all the three accused and convicted 6 Months R I Imprisonment and 30 Lac Comensation jointly and severely liabile.
Next, all the three accused filed appeal seperately and complaninant also filed revision for enhancment the compensation and conviction.
Next, In appeal, accused No. 1 and 2 compounded each other after paying the 28 Lac and the Lok Adalat confirm the settlement of accused No. 1 and 2.
Now the accused No. 3 is facing the appeal before the appellate court.
Q. 1.- whether the Lok Adalat can compounded this case if the liability is jointly and severely passed by the trial court?
Q. 2- If accused No. 1 and 2 paid Rs. 28 Lac against the compensation passed i.e. 30 Lac then whether the accused is entitle only to the extent to remaining amount i.e 2 Lac.
Q. No. 3- If the accused No. 1 CO. compunded the matter in the Lak Adalat then the accused No. 3 is liable for vicarious liability.
advocate satya
07 November 2008 at 14:02
what is tender of affidavit in cheque offence cases , what is the procedure of doing that?
Legal Fighter
06 November 2008 at 08:45
Can anyone pls help me to get a copy of the below judgment of AP High Court. I could pay for the charges incurred. i need it urgently. pls help me.
STATUS OF : CRLP 3714 of 2007 STAGE : FOR ADMISSION
U.U. THIMMANNA, & 4 OTHERS, V/S SMT. U. U. SANDHYA, & ANOTHER,
PET.Advocate : C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
RES.Advocate : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR-Number: /
District: KURNOOL Lower Court Number : 1/2007
Subject : U/s.482 Cr.p.c Other offences not covered(Misc.)
Last Time Listed On : 01-Aug-2007
Misc. Petitions filed : Disposed On : 02-Aug-2007
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
Connected Matters :
alimakwa
06 November 2008 at 01:41
a family friend has robbed my mothers original land documents ,coerced her into giving her signature ,deposited Rs 25 lakhs in her bank account and transferred the money to another account by forcefully taking signed blank cheques,and sold all her land on the basis of a notarised power of attorney by bribing the sub registrar, who has done the conveyance on a notarised POA.THE police arrested the notary and confiscated the register in which 2 power of attorneys were made on the same day.the notary has also confessed that none of the signatories was present while notarising the POA in a statement to the police.THE POLICE HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY ACCOUNT OF THE STOLEN MONEY WHICH IS AROUND 35 LAKHS..CAN I APPROACH THE ECONOMIC OFFENCES OFFICE . CAN I TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE SUB REGISTRAR .
kirankumar
05 November 2008 at 12:49
What is the time limit to file the complaint under DP act section 3 in Andhra Pradesh ?
Ch. Sujatha
05 November 2008 at 08:00
Respected Seniors,
The Accused issued a cheque for which time barred debt. i.e. After expiry of 3 years limitation of promissory note the accused issued a cheque towards payment of the said promissory note.
Basing on the said cheque complainant filed a case and now stage is for marking of documents on behalf of complainant.
The complainant filed the said expired pronote for marking of document on his behalf to prove the legally recoverable debt.
In this stage what is the remedy to the Accused to defend his case. Is it possible to mark the said time barred pronote.
Thanking You Sir.
Kamlesh soni
03 November 2008 at 23:24
Sir, I want to humbly know that can a person's dying declaration is always right? I know one case that there is a false statement given by a lady who was in last stage of life. she want to punish his son-in-law due to love marriage.how we save our client. please guide me.
Neeraj Chawla
01 November 2008 at 20:07
DEAR SIR,,
THE UNDERSIGNED IS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.). MYSELF NEED TO ASK A QUERY REGARDING A FALSE CASE REGISTERED AGAINST ONE MR. NARESH DHALL WHO DARED TO BROUGHT CORRUPT OFFICIALS BOOKED WITH THE HELP OF C.B.I. AND HIMSELF GOT IMPLICATED IN A FALSE CASE REGISTERED BY THE LUDHIANA POLICE AT P.S. KOTWALI ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) OF THE SAME NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA. THE CASE IS AS FOLLOWS:-
IN F.I.R. NO. 81 REGISTERED AT P.S. KOTWALI, LUDHIANA DATED 03-10-2008
U/S 379,419,120B IPC
ALLEGATIONS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) S. JASPAL SINGH
1. THAT ON RECEIPT OF REPORT OF SURVEY BY MITTAL SURVEYORS AS PER THEIR RECOMMENDATION THE DEPARTMENT PROMPTLY COMPLETED ALL FORMALITIES FOR TIMELY DISBURSEMENT OF CLAIM CHEQUE TO NARESH DHALL WHO WAS DULY INFORMED. THAT ON DATED 30-05-2007 COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH WAS PRESENT IN HIS ALONGWITH O.P. MALHOTRA DEPUTY MANAGER AND AROUND 4.15 P.M. THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL CAME ALONGWITH ONE GENTLEMAN AND NARESH DHALL INTRODUCED THE SAID GENTLEMAN AS SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH. MR. NARESH DHALL ASKED THE COMPLAINANT THAT THIS CLAIM FILE BE SHOWN TO CBI OFFICER FROM CBI AS HE HAS TO PERUSE THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH INVESTIGATION. THE COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH BELEIVING THE SAID GENTLEMAN TO BE THE SENIOR OFFICER OF THE CBI HANDED OVER THE CLAIM FILE DOCUMENTS AS TO ASSIST HIM FOR THR PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION. THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= AND LATER ON 6.6.2007 DULY SIGNED CONSENT LETTER OF MR. NARESH DHALL FROM THE CLAIM FILE AND TOLD THAT AS THE MATTER REGARDING THIS CLAIM IS UNDER INVERSTIGATION WITH CBI AS SUCH HE HAS TO DISCUSS WITH SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI UPON WHICH CBI OFFICER STARTED CONTACTING HIS SENIOR OFFICIAL ON TELEPHONE AND WHILE TALKING ON PHONE MOVED OUT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH CLAIM CHEQUE. NOTEDLY NARESH DHALL KEPT SITTING WITH COMPLAINANT IN THE OFFICE ITSELF AND TOLD JASPAL SINGH THAT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF CBI OFFICIALS HE CAN NOT COMPLY WITH ANY FORMALITY AND ASSURED THAT SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI SHALL BE BACK AS SOON AS HE GET NOD FROM HIS SENIOR OFFICIALS HE WILL SIGN THE RECEIPT. BUT AFTER HAVING WAITED FOR NEARLY 2 HOUR THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI DID NOT RETURN AND NARESH DHALL TOLD THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI AND HIS TEAM HAS COME FROM CHANDIGARH IN CONNECTION WITH ___________ OTHER RAIDS TO BE CONDUCTED IN LUDHIANA TODAY AND PROMISED TO COMPLETE AND SIGNED THE REST OF FORMALITIES NEXT DAY.
2. THE COMPLAINANT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT NARESH DHALL NEVER RETURNED AND IT WAS REVEALED LATER ON THAT NO OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH WAS DEPUTED BY CBI WITH NARESH DHALL TO SECURE THE DOCUMENTS AND INSPECT THE FILE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION.
VERSION OF THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL:
1. IF ON 30-05-2007 ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL AND ONE OTHER PERSON (ONLY KNOWN TO HIM) WHO WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. NARESH DHALL AS CBI OFFICER AS THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= WHY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA DIDN’T INFORM THE POLICE AUTHORITIES AND PROCEED FOR THE STOP PAYMENT OF CHEQUE. ACTUALLY THE CHEQUE WAS IN FAVOUR OF M/S SHALLY COLLECTION WHOSE PROPRIETOR IS MR. NARESH DHALL ONLY & IT WAS A PAYEE’S A/C CHEQUE. THE COMPLAINANT MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA SIGNED THE SAME CHEQUE ONLY AT THE TIME WHILE HANDING OVER IT TO THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL WHO WAS THERE ONLY TO OBTAIN THE CHEQUE AFTER HE GOT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR
Member Strength 9,50,430 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Corporate body as accused - on whom the process should be served.
There is a criminal case against the Dena bank and its officers for destruction of evidence and conspiracy.
For Dena bank to whom the process should be served.