Last Seen Blogs
Text
Kerala High Court
Crl. MC No. 1310 of 2019
Sandhya Rani G Vs. Sate of Kerala &ors.
The single bench of Justice Narayana Pisharadi said, "Even if some other person had filled up the cheque, it does not in any way affect the validity of the cheque." The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.challenging the order passed by the trial court refusing to the send the cheque for examination of handwriting.
The court, in this case, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar wherein it was held, "It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer." Accordingly, the court in the present case held, "When the accused admits the signature in the cheque, it is immaterial whether some other person had made the entries in the cheque/filled it up. Even if some other person had filled up the cheque, it does not in any way affect the validity of the cheque." Further, the court said the intention of the petitioner/accused was only to protract the proceedings in the case and that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
#remjuris #Court #highcourt #judiciary #advocate #thehindu #judges #constitution #livelaw #lawupdates #news #legalnews #vakil #districtcourt #supremecourt #lawschoolmemes #signature #drawing #lawofindia #138 #lawgicallyspeaking #awareness #lawless #lawofattraction #person #lawenforcement #lawschool #lawandordersvu #lawyer #lawncare
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9ytgzdFJTR/?igshid=163ug5bnv9ee2
0 notes
Text
Madras High Court
UOI vs. M. Asiya Begum
W.A No. 4343 of 2019
The case of the employee was governed by Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972.
Rule 43 of the said Rules stated : " 43(1) A female Government servant (including an apprentice) with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement." 43(2) During such period, she shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave..." The court opined that, "We find that a second delivery, which, in the present case, has resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the Rules. The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children." " The Rule under interpretation clearly spells out that the benefit would be available only if the claimant has not more than two children." The court said that the Single Judge in the impugned judgment erroneously extended the benefit to the respondent without taking notice of the appropriate Rules. " When twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries" added the court.
#remjuris #Court #highcourt #judi #advocate #thehindu #judges #constitution #livelaw #lawupdates #news #justice #ram #districtcourt #supremecourt #maternityshoot #benefit #maternityphotography #lawofindia #lawgicallyspeaking #awareness #children #chill #lawofattraction #lawenforcement #lawschool #lawandordersvu #lawyers #child #judicial
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9mkDaUlY1n/?igshid=1jnt3yesfidpe
0 notes
Text
Madras High Court
UOI vs. M. Asiya Begum
W.A No. 4343 of 2019
The case of the employee was governed by Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972.
Rule 43 of the said Rules stated : " 43(1) A female Government servant (including an apprentice) with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement." 43(2) During such period, she shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave..." The court opined that, "We find that a second delivery, which, in the present case, has resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the Rules. The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children." " The Rule under interpretation clearly spells out that the benefit would be available only if the claimant has not more than two children." The court said that the Single Judge in the impugned judgment erroneously extended the benefit to the respondent without taking notice of the appropriate Rules. " When twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries" added the court.
#remjuris #Court #highcourt #judi #advocate #thehindu #judges #constitution #livelaw #lawupdates #news #justice #ram #districtcourt #supremecourt #maternityshoot #benefit #maternityphotography #lawofindia #lawgicallyspeaking #awareness #children #chill #lawofattraction #lawenforcement #lawschool #lawandordersvu #lawyers #child #judicial
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9mkDaUlY1n/?igshid=12fljg1iqi3u0
0 notes
Text
Delhi High Court
Sunita Palta & Ors. Vs. M/s KIT Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Crl. M.C. 1410/2018 "To fasten the criminal liability under The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the generalized averment without any specific details as to how and in what manner, the petitioners (independent Non-executive Directors) were responsible for the control and management of affairs of the company, is not enough." The court pointed out the dictum laid down in Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. where the issue was relating to the vicarious liability of a Non-executive Director. The apex court said, ""17...Non-executive Director is no doubt a custodian of the governance of the Company but does not involve in the day-to- day affairs of the running of its business and only monitors the executive activity. To fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act on a person, at the material time that person shall have been at the helm of affairs of the Company, one who actively looks after the day-to-day activities of the Company and particularly responsible for the conduct of its business. Simply because a person is a Director of a Company, does not make him liable under the N.I. Act. Every person connected with the Company will not fall into the ambit of the provision. Time and again, it has been asserted by this Court that only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. A Director, who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the relevant time, will not be liable for an offence under Section 141 of the N.I. Act." Further, the court also relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, where it was held, " "23....Non-Executive Directors are, therefore, persons who are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the running of the company and are not in charge of and not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company."
#remjuris #Court #highcourt #judi #advocate #thehindu #judges #director #remjuris #vakeel #people
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9nudanlcgD/?igshid=1iiwy1v4quvbe
1 note
·
View note