Bharathadityalu

 Dishonour of Cheque - S. 141 NI Act| Complainant only supposed to have general knowledge of person(s) in charge of company/firm; Burden on Director/Partner to prove their innocence:  Supreme Court Reported  Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala Between  S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Snehalatha Elangovan Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1238,  Dated: 16.09.2022 Supreme Court: In yet another issue involving the true import of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala*, JJ has laid down the guiding principles for dealing with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and had held that for fastening the criminal liability, there is no legal requirement for the complainant to show that the accused partner of the firm was aware about each and every transaction. The Court held that, “if any Director or Partner wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on the ground that only a ba

A Sale Agreement constitutes all the terms and conditions of the sale of a property (movable or immovable) to the buyer. Under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, an agreement for the transfer of rights of immovable property of value more than Rs. 100/-, is required to be registered. Section 54, under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines Sale as a transfer of ownership for a price and in case of transfer of immovable property of a value exceeding One Hundred Rupees, can be done only through a registered instrument. This is important to note that Section 54 only mandates registration of the sale deed, i.e., only the instrument that helped in the sale of the property but does not mandate the registration of Agreement to Sale (ATS). An unregistered sale deed without the delivery of property will not be enough since the document must be registered. Thus under Section 54, such an unregistered sale deed, although valid under the Registration Act, will not be able to confer the title on

 Landmark Judgement: Effects of non registration of partnership firm IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 4092 of 1998 Decided On: 07.11.2006  Purushottam and Anr. Vs. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: B.P. Singh and Altamas Kabir, JJ. There is a possible confusion on the case that whether the subsequent registration of the firm will cure the initial defect in the filing of the suit. It has arisen for consideration in D.D.A. v. Kochhar Construction Work and Anr. The court stated that the provision of the Act it was not possible to subscribe to the view that subsequent registration of the firm will cure the initial defect, because of the proceedings. They not have been instituted as the firm in whose name the proceedings were instituted was not a registered firm on the date of the institution of the proceedings. Bharath L Advocate High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore  9844734166 Read Judgment 1. In this appeal by special leave the plaintiffs are the

  Whether the court can refuse maintenance to the wife if she gives contradictory admission in her cross-examination? Gujarat High Court Ajitbhai Mohanbhai Parghi vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 2020 Bench: A. P. Thaker R/CR.RA/74/2020 On perusal of entire material on record, it appears that the husband has heavily relied upon the statement made by the wife during her chief­examination to the effect that cheque given by the husband is dishonoured and, during her cross­examination, she has admitted that the cheque was encashed. Thus, solely on this ground, it is argued that the wife is making false statements and she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the husband.  It is well settled that entire evidence, which includes chief­examination, cross­examination and re­examination if any, is required to be appreciated. Lapses or incorrect statement or false version put forward in chief­examination is not sufficient to discard other facts narrated in the deposition of the wife. 

 How to appreciate evidence of SDR, CDR and tower location in criminal case? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH  CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 01 OF 2020  State of Maharashtra, Vs  Sagar Vishwanath Borkar, CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE and AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. In addition to the evidence of CCTV footage, the prosecution sought to rely upon SDR, CDR and tower location of the accused. Mahamuni (PW15) has stated in his evidence that as per his letter issued to Superintendent of Police, Buldhana, he received four papers which were marked as Exh. 125. He stated in his evidence that from CDR and SDR, he came to know about the location of the accused at the time of incident. He identified the contents of the said letter which were marked as Exhs. 126 and 127. Learned trial Court refused to place reliance upon SDR, CDR and tower location of the accused as the said electronic evidence were not supported by certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act. In our opinion,the l