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 Cheque Bounce Lawyer

Cheque Bounce Section 138 Judgement

Zen MArketing Limited Vs. State of Gujarat 2018 (3) G.L.H. 63.

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881- S. 138 and S. 142(2)- Complaint for dishonour of cheque- jurisdiction-Complainant having an account with the Bank of Baroda at Vadodara-The accused issued cheques in favour of the Complain-ant drawn on a drawee Bank having branch at New Delhi-As the Complainant was having an agreement with the Corporation Bank at New Delhi for facility of Fund Collection System whereby the daily fund/amount is collected from all centres and credited in the account of the Complainant at Bank of Baroda, vadodara, the Complainant handed over the cheques of the accused to the Corporation Bank,New Delhi for the purpose of clearance- However,Corporation Bank informed the Complainant that all the cheques had been dishonored to the account main-tained by the Complainant with the Bank of Baroda having branch at Vadodara, when presented for clearance-The Complainant therefore filed Complaints in the Court of Magistrate at Vadodara-Held,although the cheques issued by the accused where collected by the Complainant at New Delhi and where presented for clearance with the Coporation Bank at New Delhi, it could be said that the cheque were presented through an account maintained by the Complainant with Bank of Baroda having branch at Vadodara-It is the original account of the Complainant maintained with the Bank of Baroda which is important and without the said account, the arrangement with the Corporation Bank can never come into play-Without the account of the Complainant maintained with the Bank of Baroda, the Corporation Bank could not have given credit if the cheques have been cleared-Thus, the Court at Vadodara has the territorial jurisdiction and the Complaint filed by the Complainant are maintainable.

Zen Marketing Limited Vs. State of Gujarat 2018 (3) G.L.H. 63.

પરક્રામ્ય લેખોનો અ‍ધિનિયમ, ૧૮૮૧- કલમ ૧૩૮ અને કલમ ૧૪૨(૨)-ચેક પરત ફરવા માટે ફરિયાદ-હકુમત-ફરિયાદીનું એક ખાતુ બેંક ઓફ બરોડા, વડોદરામાં હોવાથી- એક આરોપીએ ફરીયાદીની તરફેણમાં ચેક નવી દિલ્હી બ્રાંચનો આપેલ-કારણ ફરિયાદીને કોર્પોરેશન બેંક, નવી દિલ્લી ખાતે એક વ્યવસ્થા હોવાથી ભંડોળ ભેગુ કરવાની પદ્રતિની સગવડ હોવાથી દરેક હેતુ ઉપરથી ભંડોળ/રકમ કાયમી રોજ ભેગી કરવામા આવતી અને ફરિયાદીના બેંક ઓફ બરોડાના ખાતા વડોદરામાં ક્રેડિટ આપવામાં આવતી, ફરિયાદીએ આપેલ ચેક આરોપીએ કોર્પોરેશન બેંક નવી દિલ્હીને કલીયર કરવાના હેતુથી આપેલ-તેમ છ્તાં, કોર્પોરેશન બેંકે ફરિયાદીને જણાવેલ કે ફરિયાદીના બેંક ઓફ બરોડામાં ચલાવવામાં આવતા ખાતામાંથી બધા ચેકો કરલીયરંસ માટે રજુ કરવામાં આવતા બેંક ઓફ બરોડાની બ્રાંચ/શાખામાં પરત ફરતા હોઇ- આથી ફરિયાદીએ વડોદરા મેજીસ્ટ્રેટની અદાલતમાં ફરિયાદ દાખલ કરેલ-ઠરાવ્યું, તેમ છતાં ફરિયાદી આરોપી દ્રારા આપવામાં આવતા ચેક નવી દિલ્હીમાં ભેગા કરતાં અને જયારે નવી દિલહીની કોર્પોરેશન બેંકમાં કલીયરન્સ માટે રજુ કરવામાં આવતા, એવું કહી શકાય કે ફરિયાદી દ્રારા ચલાવવામાં આવતા બેંક ઓફ બરોડાના ખાતામાં વડોદરા ખાતે બ્રાંચ હોવાથી ખાતામાં રજૂ થતા હતા-તે ફરિયાદી દ્રારા બેંક ઓફ બરોડા સાથે ચલાવવામાં આવતુ મૂળ/ઓરીજિનલ ખાતુ કે જે અગત્યનું અને તે ખાતા સિવાય, કોર્પોરેશન બેંકની વ્યવસ્થા સાથે કોઇ દિવસ ઉપયોગ/પ્લેમાં આવતુ નહિ-ફરિયાદીના બેંક ઓફ બરોડા સાથે ચલાવવાના ખાતા સિવાય, કોર્પોરેશન બેંકમાં જમા આપી શકતા નહિ જો ચેક કલીયર થયેલ હોય- આથી, વડોદરા ખાતેની અદાલતને પ્રાદેશિક હકુમત હતી અને ફરિયાદી દ્રારા કરવામાં આવેલ ફરિયાદ ટકવાપાત્ર છે.

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.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Legal Disputes

The Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Section 115 Estoppel

Section 115 Estoppel

When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Illustration

A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it.

The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

धारा 115 विबंध :

जबकि एक व्यक्ति ने अपनी घोषणा, कार्य या लोप द्वारा अन्य व्यक्ति को विश्वास साशय कराया है या कर लेने दिया है कि कोई बात सत्य है और ऐसे विश्वास पर कार्य कराया या करने दिया है, तब न तो उसे और न उसके प्रतिनिधि को अपने और ऐसे व्यक्ति के, या उसके प्रतिनिधि के, बीच किसी वाद या कार्यवाही में उस बात की सत्यता का प्रत्याख्यान करने दिया जाएगा।

दृष्टांत

क साशय और मिथ्या रूप से ख को यह विश्वास करने के लिए प्रेरित करता है कि अमुक भूमिका की है, और तद्द्वारा ख को उसके क्रय करने और उसका मूल्य चुकाने के लिए उत्प्रेरित करता है।

तत्पश्चात भूमि क की सम्पत्ति हो जाती है और क इस आधार पर कि विक्रय के समय उसका उसमें हक नहीं था, विक्रय अपास्त करने की ईप्सा करता है। उसे अपने हक का अभाव साबित नहीं करने दिया जाएगा।

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.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Legal Disputes

The Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Section 145

Section-145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.

A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

धारा 145 भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम – पूर्वतन लेखबद्ध कथनों के बारे में प्रतिपरीक्षा —

किसी साक्षी की उन पूर्वतन कथनों के बारे में, जो उसने लिखित रूप में किए हैं या जो लेखबद्ध किए गए हैं और जो प्रश्नगत बातों से सुसंगत हैं, ऐसा लेख उसे दिखाए बिना, या ऐसे लेख साबित हुए बिना, प्रतिपरीक्षा की जा सकेगी, किन्तु यदि उस लेख द्वारा उसका खण्डन करने का आशय है तो उस लेख को साबित किए जा सकने के पूर्व उसका ध्यान उस लेख के उन भागों की ओर आकर्षित करना होगा जिनका उपयोग उसका खण्डन करने के प्रयोजन से किया जाना है।

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.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Criminal Cases, Criminal Lawyer

Section 300 Judgement

Section 300 Murder

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

4thly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

एतस्मिनपश्चात् अपवादित मामलों को छोड़कर, गैर इरादतन मानव वध हत्या है, यदि वह कार्य जिसके द्वारा मृत्यु कारित की जाती है, मृत्यु कारित करने के आशय से किया जाता है, या—

(द्वितीय) – यदि यह ऐसी शारीरिक क्षति कारित करने के आशय से किया जाता है, जिसके बारे में अपराधी जानता है कि इससे उस व्यक्ति की मृत्यु होने की संभावना है, जिसे क्षति पहुंचाई गई है, या—

(तीसरा)—यदि यह किसी व्यक्ति को शारीरिक क्षति पहुंचाने के इरादे से किया गया हो और वह शारीरिक क्षति प्रकृति के सामान्य अनुक्रम में मृत्यु कारित करने के लिए पर्याप्त हो, या—

(चौथा) – यदि कार्य करने वाला व्यक्ति जानता है कि यह इतना खतरनाक है कि यह पूरी संभावना में मृत्यु या ऐसी शारीरिक चोट का कारण बनता है जिससे मृत्यु होने की संभावना है, और इस तरह के कार्य को जोखिम उठाने के लिए किसी भी बहाने के बिना करता है मौत या इस तरह की चोट के कारण पूर्वोक्त। रेखांकन

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.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
Categories Cheque Bounce Lawyer

Cheque Bounce Section-138 Judgement

Narsingbhai Jethabhai Aakoliya Vs. State of Gujarat 2019 (1) G.L.H.234.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-S.138 and S. 139-Dishonour of Cheque-Presumption-The onus to rebut the presumption that the Cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused-The fact that the cheque might be post dated does not absolve the drawer of the cheque of the penal consequences under the Act.

Narsingbhai Jethabhai Aakoliya Vs. State of Gujarat 2019 (1) G.L.H.234.

વટાવખત અધિનિયમ, 1881-કલમ 138 અને કલમ 139 -ચેક પરત ફર્યા- ધારણા-દેવું અથવા જવાબદારીમાંથી મુકત થવા ચેક આપવામાં આવ્યો છે, તે ધારણનું ખંડન કરવાનો બોજો આરોપી પર છે-હકીકત છે કે, પછીની તારીખનો ચેક કદાચ ચેક લખનારને કાયદા હેઠળ દંડના પરિણામોથી આરોપમુકત કરી શકતું નથી.

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh kumar 2019 (1) G.L.H.338.

Negotiable Instruments Act,1881-S. 138-A complaint u/S. 138 is filed and it is settled between the parties-A fresh cheque is issued as per the terms of settlement and the same is dishonoured-Held, Only signatory of the cheque is responsible if the cheque is issued from his personal account-It is open for the complainant to challenge the order of acquittal passed in pursuance of the settle-ment against all the persons who were signatories of the settlement.

Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh kumar 2019 (1) G.L.H.338.

વટાવખત અધિનિયમ, 1881- કલમ 138 કલમ 138 હેઠળ ફરિયાદ દાખલ કરવામાં આવી અને પક્ષો વચ્ચે સમાધાનની શરતો અનુસાર નવો ચેક જારી કરવામાં આવ્યો અને તે પરત ફરેલ- ઠરાવ્યું, જો ચેક તેના વ્યકિતગત ખાતામાંથી આપવામાં આવેલ હોય તો માત્ર ચેક પર હસ્તાક્ષ્ર કરનાર જવાબદાર છે- ફરિયાદ કરનાર સમાધાનમાં હસ્તાક્ષ્રર કરનાર તમામ વ્યક્તિઓ સામે સમાધાનના અનુસંધાનમાં નિર્દોષ છોડવાના આદેશને પડકારી શકે છે.

Garnet Speciality Paper Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat 2019 (1) G.L.H. 543.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-S. 138- The accused convicted for the offenses u/S. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for one year-After conviction the accused deposited an amount of cheque of Rs.2 lacs, which was challenged by the complainant in the High Court contending that even amount of interest is also denied with the Trial Court-The High Court while allowing appeal directly to pay twice the amount of the cheque to the original complainant by way of fine which shall be deposited by the convict with the High Court within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order, failing which the respondent convict shall pay interest on the said sum at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint-The complainanat will be entited to receive such amount on deposit by the convict- if the convict fails to deposit the said amount, the trial court shall issue warrant against the convict directing them to serve sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months u/S. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Garnet Speciality Paper Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat 2019 (1) G.L.H. 543.

વટાવખત અધિનિયમ, 1881-કલમ 138 આરોપીને વટાવખત અધિનિયમની કલમ 138 હેઠળના ગુના માટે એક વર્ષની સાદી કેદની સજા કરવામાં આવેલ-સજા કર્યા બાદ આરોપીએ રૂ. 2/- લાખની એક રકમનો ચેક જમા કરાવેલ, કે જે ફરિયાદીએ હાઇકોર્ટ સમક્ષ એવું દર્શાવી પડકારેલ કે ઇંસાફી અદાલત સમક્ષ વ્યાજની રકમ માટે પણ નકારેલ છે જયારે નામદાર હાઇકોર્ટ અરજી દાખલ કરતા સમયે સીધી સુચના આપેલ કે મુળ ફરિયાદીને ચેકની રકમ કરતા બે ગણી રકમ દંડ તરીકે કે જે ગુન્હેગાર દ્રારા હાઇકોર્ટ સમક્ષ હુકમની તારીખથી 12 અઠવાડિયાના એક સમયમાં જમા કરાવે, જેમાં નિષ્ફળ થતાં પ્રતિવાદી ગુંહેગારે વાર્ષિક 9% લેખેની રકમ ફરિયાદની તારીખથી જમા કરાવે-ફરિયાદી આવી રકમ જમા કરાવવામાં નિષ્ફળ રહેશે, તો ઇન્સાફી અદાલત સજા પામનાર સામે પરક્રામ્ય લેખોના અધિનિયમની કલમ 138 હેઠળ છ માસની સાદી કેદની સજા ભોગવવાની તેમને સજાની સુચનાનું વોરંટ જારી કરી શકશે.

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.

Author Advocate Paresh M Modi
1 … 51 52 53 54 55 … 57