Author: Advocate Paresh M Modi

As a law firm, Advocate Paresh M Modi is having a team of expert Advocates who provide expert advice and guide the clients on the complicated issues of court proceedings in India. Our law firm has been advising clients to adopt a systematic approach as per the provisions of the law and the requirements of the statute. Being the Best Advocate in Ahmedabad, Advocate Paresh M Modi has been serving the clients according to the provisions of law as Advocate Paresh M Modi is an Experienced Lawyer in Gujarat.Paresh M Modi and his associates have been rendering excellent work owing to their experience in Gujarat High Court for more than 7 years together and having established themselves as a seasoned advocate in the High Court of Gujarat by dealing with various matters in a different fields. It has been made possible to see that the client in any corner of the State of Gujarat could get genuine legal advice and the presence of a lawyer on account of the association with Advocates in various cities of the State of Gujarat.

Categories Legal Disputes

Section 62 : Primary Evidence : The Indian Evidence Act,1872

Section 62:- Primary evidence. — Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.

Explanation 1. — Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document; Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.

Explanation 2. — Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.

Illustration: A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.

धारा 62.प्राथमिक साक्ष्य – प्राथमिक साक्ष्य कस न्यायालय के निरीक्षण के लिए पेश की गई दस्तावेज स्वयं अभिप्रेत है।

स्पष्टीकरण 1 – जहां कि कोई दस्तावेज कई मूल प्रतियों में निष्पादित है, वहां हर एक मूल प्रति उस दस्तावेज का प्राथमिक साक्ष्य है।जहां कि कोई दस्तावेज प्रतिलेख में निष्पादित है और हर एक प्रतिलेख पक्षकारों में से केवल एक पक्षकार या कुछ पक्षकारों द्वारा निष्पादित किया गया है, वहां हर एक प्रतिलेख उन पक्षकारों के विरुद्ध, उन्होंने उसका निष्पादन किया है, प्राथमिक साक्ष्य है।

स्पष्टीकरण 2 – जहां कि अनेक दस्तावेजें एकरूपात्मक प्रक्रिया द्वारा बनाई गई हैं, जैसा कि मुद्रण, शिलामुद्रण या फोटो-चित्रण में होता है, वहां उनमें से हर एक शेष सब कि अन्तर्वस्तु का प्राथमिक साक्ष्य है, किन्तु जहां कि वे सब किसी सामसन्य मुल की प्रतियां है वहां वे मुल की अन्तर्वस्तु का प्राथमिक साक्ष्य नहीं है।

दृष्टान्त – यह दर्शित किया जाता है। कि एक ही समय एक ही मूल से मुद्रित अनेक पैन कार्ड किसी व्यक्ति के कब्जे में रखे हैं। इन प्ले कार्डों में से कोई भी एक अन्य किसी की भी अंतर्वस्तु का प्राथमिक साक्ष्य है किन्तु उनमें से कोई भी मूल की अंतर्वस्तु का प्राथमिक साक्ष्य नहीं है।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Legal Disputes

Section 63 Secondary Evidence : The Indian Evidence Act,1872

Section 63 Secondary evidence.—Secondary evidence means and includes—

(1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained 1;1;”

(2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;

(3) Copies made from or compared with the original;

(4) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

(5) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

Illustration:

(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original.

(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.

(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.

(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.

धारा-63. द्वितीयक साक्ष्य – द्वितीयक साक्ष्य से अभिप्रेत है और उसके अन्तर्गत आते हैं-

(1) एतस्मिन्प्श्चात अन्तर्विष्ट उपबन्धों के अधीन दी हुई प्रमाणित प्रतियां;

(2) मूल से ऐसी यांत्रिक प्रक्रियाओं द्वारा, जो प्रक्रियाएं स्वयं ही प्रति का शुद्धता सुनिश्चित करती हैं, बनाई गई प्रतियां तथा ऐसी प्रजातियों से तुलना की हुई प्रतिलिपि;

(3) मूल से बनाई गई या तुलना की गई प्रतियां;

(4) उन पक्षकारों के विरुद्ध, जिन्होंने उन्हें निष्पादित नहीं किया है, दस्तावेजों के प्रतिलेख;

(5) किसी दस्तावेज की अंतर्वस्तु का उस व्यक्ति द्वारा, जिसने सबसे उसे देखा है, दिया हुआ मौखिक वृत्तान्त।

दृष्टान्त-

(क) किसी मूल का फोटोचित्र, यद्यपि दोनों की तुलना न की गई हो तथापि यदि ये साबित किया जाता है कि फोटोचित्र वस्तु मूल थी, उस मूल की अन्तर्वस्तु का द्वितीयक साक्ष्य है।

(ख) किसी पत्र की वह प्रति, जिसकी तलना उस पत्र की, उस प्रति से कर ली गई है जो प्रतिलिपि-यंत्र द्वारा तैयार की गई है, उस पत्र की अन्तर्वस्तु का द्वितीयक साक्ष्य है, यदि यह दर्शित कर दिया जाता है कि प्रतिलिपि-यंत्र द्वारा तैयार की गई प्रति मूल से बनाई गई थी।

(ग) प्रति की नकल करके तैयार की गई किन्तु तत्पश्चात् मूल से तुलना की हुई प्रतिलिपि द्वितीयक साक्ष्य है, किन्तु इस प्रकार तुलना नहीं की हुई प्रति मूल का द्वितीयक साक्ष्य नहीं है, यद्यपि उस प्रति की, जिससे वह नकल की गई है, मूल से तुलना की गई थी।

(घ) न तो मूल से तुलनाकृत प्रति का मौखिक वृत्तान्त और न मूल के किसी फांेटोचित्र या यन्त्रकृत प्रति का मौखिक वृत्तान्त मूल का द्वितीयक साक्ष्य हैं।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Cheque Bounce Lawyer

Cheque Bounce Judgement

Judgement:

Anil Sachar v. Shree Nath Spinners Private Limited, 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 799: 2011 (13) SCC 148: 2011 (3) Bank Cas 508: 2011 (8) JT 586: 2011 (3) Crimes 142: AIR 2011 SC 2751 :2011 Cri LJ 4611.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Section 139-Legal Liability of drawer of cheque-Presumtion under Section 139 has not been rebutted, trial Court Wrongly acquitted accused-Viewed that there was no consideration for which cheques were given to complainant-Court confirmed incorrect view, order set aside.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ 1881- કલમ 139- ચેક કાઢી આપનારની કાનુની જવાબદારી- કલમ 139 હેઠળના અનુમાનને ખોટું ઠરાવાયું નથી-ટ્રાયલ કોર્ટે આરોપીને ખોટી રીતે છોડી મુકયો-એવો મત કે ફરિયાદીને ચેકો અપાયા જે માટે કોઇ અવેજ ન હતો-અદાલતે ખોટા અભિપ્રાયને કે મતને કાયમ કર્યો-આદેશ રદ કરવામાં આવ્યો.

Anil Sachar v. Shree Nath Spinners Private Limited, 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 799: 2011 (13) SCC 148: 2011 (3) Bank Cas 508: 2011 (8) JT 586: 2011 (3) Crimes 142: AIR 2011 SC 2751 :2011 Cri LJ 4611.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 139-Liability or “debt”- Ex-pressions “give” ruising of doubt, liability under Section 138 cannot be avoided if cheque returns unpaid-High Court get carried away by issue of guarantee and guarantor’s liablity has overlooked true intent of section 138.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ 1881-કલમ 139- “જવાબદારી” અથવા “દેવું”- શબ્દપ્રયોગ શંકા પેદા કરે છે જો ચેક સ્વીકારાયા વિના પરત ફરે તો કલમ ૧૩૮ હેઠળ જવાબદારી ટાળી શકાશે નહિ-ગેંરટી આપવાથી હાઇકોર્ટ સંતોષાઇ ગઇ અને ખાત્રી આપનારની જવાબદારીને ધ્યાનમાં લીધી નથી-કલમ 138 નો ખરો ઇરાદો ધ્યાનમાં લીધો નથી.

Anil Sachar v. Shree Nath Spinners Private Limited, 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 799: 2011 (13) SCC 148: 2011 (3) Bank Cas 508: 2011 (8) JT 586: 2011 (3) Crimes 142: AIR 2011 SC 2751 :2011 Cri LJ 4611.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 139- Legal liability of drawer-Limited company is a separate legal entity and its directors are different legal persons under Section 139 one can safely conclude that cheques signed had been given to company in discharge of debt or liability incurred by company.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ 1881-કલમ-139-ચેક કાઢી આપનારની કાનુની જવાબદારી-લિમિટેડ કંપની એ એક અલગ કાનુની વ્યકિતત્વ અને એના ડિરેકટરો કલમ 139 હેઠળ અલગ કાનુની વ્યકિતઓ છે- આથી એમ સલામત રીતે નિષ્કર્ષ કાઢી શકાય કે સહી કરેલો ચેક કંપનીને એના દેણા કે એણે સ્વીકારેલી જવાબદારી પ્રત્યે અપાયો હતો.

Anil Sachar v. Shree Nath Spinners Private Limited, 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 799: 2011 (13) SCC 148: 2011 (3) Bank Cas 508: 2011 (8) JT 586: 2011 (3) Crimes 142: AIR 2011 SC 2751 :2011 Cri LJ 4611.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- S. 139-The standard of proof in discharge of burden in terms of S. 139, being of preponderance of probability, the inference, therefore, can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to circumstances upon which the accused relied upon-Burden of proof on the accused is not as high as that of the prosecution.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ 1881- કલમ 139- કલમ 139 ના શબ્દોમાં, બોજાની મુકિતમાં પુરાવાનું ધોરણ, શકયતાની પ્રબળતા હોવાથી રેકર્ડ પર લાવવામાં આવેલ સામગ્રી પરથી જ નહિ, પરંતુ જે સંજોગો પર આરોપીએ આધાર રાખ્યો તે સંજોગોના નિર્દેશ પરથી પણ અનુમાન કરી શકાય છે-આરોપી પર પુરવાનો બોજો ફરીયાદીના જેટલો વધારે નથી.

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Cheque Bounce Lawyer

Section:-139. Presumption in Favour of Holder

Section:-139. Presumption in Favour of holder:

It Shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

કલમ-૧૩૯. ચેકના ધારણકર્તાની તરફેણમાં અનુમાન:

વિરુધ્ધની હકીકત સાબિત ન થાય ત્યાં સુધી એવું માનવામાં આવશે કે તે ચેક ધારણ કરનારે તે ચેક કલમ-૧૩૮ માં દર્શાવ્યા મુજબ કોઇ દેવાના અથવા અન્ય જવાબદારીના પુરેપુરા અથવા તેના કોઇ ભાગમાંથી બોજ મુકત થવાના બદલામાં તે ચેક મેળવ્યો હશે.

: Comment:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Presumption mandated u/s. 139 of N.I.Act, 1881 includes existence of legally enforceable debt or liability-Presump-tion can be rebutted by Accused by raising the defense-Initial Presumption favours the Complainant and also burden of proof lies on the Complainant-Initial burden of proof lies on the Complainant-Once proved-Open to Accused to prove non-existence of consideration-Court to examine direct evidence or from preponderance of probabilities that existence of consideration was improbable Reverse onus Clause u/s. 118 of N.I Act-Presumption available until the contrary is proved-Applicable to N.I matters subject of Law of Evidence-Presumption of Law.

:ટિપ્પણી:

વટાવખત અધિનિયમ, ૧૮૮૧- એન. આઇ. અધિનિયમ, ૧૮૮૧ ની કલમ ૧૩૯ હેઠળ કાયદેસરના આદેશનું અનુમાન દેવું અને જવાબદારીના અમલનું અસિતત્વ સમાયેલ-બચાવ ઉભો કરી આરોપી દ્રારા અનુમાન નકારી શકાય -શરૂઆતનું અનુમાન ફરિયાદ પક્ષની તરફેણ કરેલ અને સાબિત કરવાની જવાબદારી ફરિયાદ પક્ષ ઉપર પણ લાદેલ-શરૂઆતની સાબિત કરવાની જવાબદારી ફરિયાદ પક્ષ ઉપર લાદેલ-એક વખત સાબિત થયેલ-આરોપી માટે સાબિત કરવાનું ખુલ્લું છે કે ધ્યાનમાં લેવાનું અસિતત્વ ધરાવતું નથી- અદાલતે સીધા પુરાવા તપાસવા અથવા શકયતાનું અનુમાન કે ધ્યાનમાં લેવાની બાબતનું અસિતત્વ અયોગ્ય હતું-એન.આઇ. અધિનિયમની કલમ ૧૧૮ હેઠળના ખંડનો બોજો ઉલટાવેલ-સાબિત ન થાય ત્યાં સુધી અનુમાન મળી શકે છે- એન.આઇ.ની બાબતને પુરવાનો કાયદો લાગુ પડે- કાયદાનું અનુમાન.

Judgement:

Patel Jayantibhai Mafatlal Vs. The State of Gujarat 2018(3) GLH (N.O.C.) 3.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-Section 139-Rebuttal-A burden on accused-Account books given in evidence-Both companies were sister con-cerns-One of them paid cheque to complainant, it was signed by other-No efforts made to prove Directors were seperate-Presumption must go in favour of holder of cheque.

Patel Jayantibhai Mafatlal Vs. The State of Gujarat 2018(3) GLH (N.O.C.) 3.

વટાઉખત અધિનિયમ ૧૮૮૧-કલમ ૧૩૯- રદિયો આપવાનું-આરોપી પર બોજો-હિસાબી ચોપડા પુરાવામાં આપ્યા-બંને કંપનીઓ (પરસ્પર સંકળાયેલી) હતી-એમાંથી એકે ફરીયાદીને ચેક આપ્યો અને બીજાએ સહી કરી-પુરવાર કરવાનો કોઇ પ્રયત્ન નહિ-ડિરેકટરો અલગ હતા-ચેક ધારકની તરફેણમાં અનુમાન થવું જોઇએ.

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Categories Legal Disputes

Section-14 : The Indian Evidence Act 1872

Section-14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling. — Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or relevant.

Explanation 1. — A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.

Explanation 2. — But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.

धारा 14 – मन या शरीर की दशा शारीरीक संवेदना का अस्तित्व दर्शित करने वाले तथ्य – मन की कोई भी दशा जैसे आशय, ज्ञान, सद्भाव, उपेक्षा, उतावलापन, किसी विशिष्ट व्यक्ति के प्रति वैमनस्य या सदिच्छा दर्शित करने वाले अथवा शरीर की या शारीरिक संवेदना की किसी दशा का अस्तित्व दर्शित करने वाले तथ्य तब सुसंगत हैं, जबकि ऐसा मन की या शरीर की या शारीरिक संवेदन की किसी ऐसी दशा का अस्तित्व विवाद्य या सुसंगत है।

स्पष्टीकरण 1 – जो तथ्य इस नाते सुसंगत है िकवह मन की सुसंगत दशा के अस्तित्व को दर्शित करता है, उससे यह दर्शित होना ही चाहिए कि मन की वह दशा साधारणतः नहीं, अपितु प्रश्नगत विशिष्ट विषय के बारे में, अस्तित्व में है।

स्पष्टीकरण 2 – किन्तु जब किसी अपराध के अभियुक्त व्यक्ति के विचार में इस धारा के अर्थ के अन्तर्गत उस अभियुक्त द्वारा किसी अपराध का कभी पहले किया जाता सुसंगत हो, तब व्यक्ति की पूर्व-दोषसिद्धि भी सुसंगत तथ्य होगी।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.