NI ACT Sections 138 and 139 Section 397 and 401 CRPC

_- NI ACT Sections 138 and 139 Section 397 and 401 CRPC Loan transaction Execution of cheque being proved on the record, court held bound to raise the presumption u/s 139 Accused failed to rebut this presumption in any manner Plea of the accused was that he had some transactions with the son of the complainant and that he had entrusted signed blank cheques with the son of the complainant and that the complainant misused one of such cheques and filed the case, not supported by any materials on the record Resultantly, conviction affirmed in revision Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there held no necessity to impose any substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner/accused. [Paras 9 to 15]*_


_*BENNET SAMRAJ Versus SAGAR SAM CRL-RP 103/20 [ NARAYANA JJ ]*_

_*[ KERALA HIGH COURT ]*_
*____________
Advocate & solicitor
8851250058
Best advocate in rohini court for divorce case | best lawyer for divorce case in rohini court | rohini court advocate contact number | best property lawyer in rohini court | property lawyer in rohini court | best cheque bounce lawyer in rohini court | best advocate for cheque bounce case in rohini court | advocate in Delhi | criminal lawyer in Rohini court | best criminal advocate in rohini court for bail | lawyer in Delhi | best lawyer in Delhi | best advocate in Delhi | rohini court ke vakil ka number | advocate near me | rohini court | lawyer near me | advocate for Motor accident claim case in rohini court | motor accident claim lawyer in rohini court | best lawyer for DV case in rohini court | advocate for Dv case in rohini court | motor accident claim ke liya rohini court ke vakil ka number | advocate for maintenance case rohini court | lawyer for maintenance case in rohini court | advocate in Tish hazari court | advocate in dwarika court | advocate in patiyala house court | advocate in saket court | advocate in rouse avenue court | advocate in Delhi high court | advocate in supreme court of India | lawyer in supreme court of India | lawyer in Delhi high court | lawyer in rouse avenue court | lawyer for cbi case | advocate for cbi case | advocate for DRT in Delhi | Lawyer for DRT in Delhi |  lawyer for CAT case | advocate for CAT case 
Www.advocatesera.com 
https://advocateindelhi.news.blog/ 
 

I'm on Instagram as @advocate_in_delhi. Install the app to follow my photos and videos.  
 
#advocateinrohinicourt 
#rohinicourtadvocate
#rohinicourt
#advocateindelhi

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sections 376

Image
_*•  Sections 376 Rape Quashing of FIR Matter compromised between accused and prosecutrix  Statement of Prosecutrix that FIR lodged out of anger reason being she and accused had altercation Unconditional apology by prosecutrix  Thus FIR should be quashed in case of rape when prosecutrix herself takes initiative and file affidavits before High Court, stating that she made complaint due to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to misunderstanding which arose between parties  Hence, FIR liable to be quashed. [Paras 7 to 11]*_ Advocates  _*Lalit kumar vs State CRL-MC 2384/20 04/12/20 [ SURESH KUMAR JJ ]*_ _*[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]*_ Advocate & solicitar 8851250058
Read more

Sections 340 read with Section 195 CRPC

Image
_*• Sections 340 read with Section 195 CRPC  False evidence in Court  Perjury - Initiation of proceedings  Allegation of husband that wife made certain mis representations to effect that upon ultrasound  LegalLites Law Firm conducted upon her, she was found to be carrying a male embryo, which was got aborted whereas in fact no such sex determination possible when pregnancy was barely 7 weeks and 6 days old Held, where falsehood is evident from facts already before Court, Court may form opinion even without holding preliminary inquiry Not expedient to conduct proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., [Paras 9 and 14]*_ _*Parveen Kumar v/s Anju CRM-41654/19 27.09.2019 [ Gurvinder Singh JJ ]*_ _*[ PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ]*_ Legallites Law Firm  8851250058  
Read more

शराब की एमआरपी पर छूट पर रोक लगाने वाले दिल्ली सरकार के आदेश को हाईकोर्ट में चुनौती

Image
दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट (Delhi High Court) में एक याचिका दायर कर दिल्ली सरकार द्वारा शहर में शराब के एमआरपी पर खुदरा लाइसेंसधारियों द्वारा छूट या रियायतें देने पर रोक लगाने के आदेश को चुनौती दी गई है। एडवोकेट संजय एबॉट, एडवोकेट तन्मया मेहता और एडवोकेट हनी उप्पल के माध्यम से दायर याचिका दिल्ली सरकार के उत्पाद, मनोरंजन और विलासिता कर विभाग द्वारा पारित 28 फरवरी, 2022 के आदेश को चुनौती देती है। वैध L7Z लाइसेंस रखने वाले पांच निजी खिलाड़ियों द्वारा याचिका दायर की गई है। याचिका पिछले साल जून में दिल्ली सरकार द्वारा वर्ष 2021-2022 के लिए अनुमोदित नई दिल्ली आबकारी नीति की पृष्ठभूमि में दायर की गई है। यह नीति शराब व्यवसाय से संबंधित विभिन्न पहलुओं के लिए रूपरेखा निर्धारित करती है। आबकारी नीति को मंजूरी मिलने के बाद दिल्ली सरकार ने भारतीय और विदेशी शराब के खुदरा विक्रेताओं के लिए जोनल लाइसेंस के लिए निविदाएं जारी की थीं। याचिकाकर्ताओं ने निविदाओं में भाग लिया और शहर के विभिन्न क्षेत्रों के लिए सफल बोलीदाताओं के रूप में उभरे। याचिका में कहा गया है कि छूट की अनुमति दी गई थी और लाइसेंसधारक छूट दे रहे थे। ...
Read more