Shivangi Tushar Garg v. Anuj Shrikant Tiberewala
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 - Sections 138 and 141 - Offences by Companies - Tax / Sale Invoices - Even if the said material is taken at face value, it is difficult to accept the submission that the material clinchingly establishes that the accused did not have any role in or concern with the transaction or the issuance of cheques. The fact that the applicants have not placed the purchase order would not per se exclude their role or involvement. It is obvious that the purchase orders would be placed by either the company or firm or on its behalf by a director or officer or other employee. The fact that the invoices placed on record do not refer to the accused does not take the case of the accused any further. Rohit B. Deo, J. Crl.A. No. 136 of 2016 08-02-2019
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/S Radhasons International
Tax Law - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the term 'crossing of customs frontiers of India' in section 2(ab) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the provision in section 5(2) of the said Act the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the impugned bonded sales effected to parties situate in Maharashtra are exempt from tax as sales in the course of import under the second limb of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the reasons of the said sales having been effected by transfer of the documents of title to the goods before crossing the customs frontiers of India? S.C. Dharmadhikari & B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. S.T.R. No. 52 of 2009 08-02-2019
Sumit Ramkrishna Maraskolhe v. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra) - Section 56
The externment order directing externment of a person from a much larger area than the one of his illegal activities, must be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction regarding the need for externing a person to an expansive area though it may not always directly or elaborately refer to that material in the order itself, as it all depends upon facts and circumstances of the case which need be vetted through the judicial process of drawing of legitimate inference following the law of Pandharinath Shridhar Ragnekar v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 372.
The order of externment need not necessarily refer to the details of the material considered by it so as to show independently that larger or additional area chosen by it is intimately connected with the actual area of the activities of the externee due to improved or common means of transport and communication.
Application of mind to the material present on record by the authority passing the externment order is necessary, but any reflection of application of mind in the externment order in a specific manner, as if to pass a reasoned order, would not be necessary. It would be enough if the order discloses that the subjective satisfaction has been reached by considering the material available on record and it would and should be a matter of legitimate inference that the authority, while considering materials to satisfy itself about the need for and extent of externment to be ordered, also considered all the options available to it and selected in it's wisdom the one which it thought to be most appropriate. This would also mean that authority, in this way, can select a larger area for being covered under it's externment order, as one of the options available to it, whether such larger area has within it contiguous or inter-connected or intimately connected pockets of areas or not.
It is not necessary to state in the show-cause notice the details or the particulars of in-camera statements recorded by the externing authority and only the general nature of material allegations is all that is necessary to be said in the show-cause notice. In other words, it is sufficient compliance with the requirement of law if the show cause notice refers in general terms to the material allegations against the proposed externee and when the action is under Section 56 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951 it also generally says that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee due to fear, alarm, danger or harm to the person or property, as the case may be.
P. N. Deshmukh, Sunil B. Shukre & Z. A. Haq, JJJ. W.P. (Crl.) No. 1002 of 2017 08-02-2019
Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari v. State of Maharashtra
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Custody of 17 Months Old Child - Dispute between father of the child and Maternal Aunts - the father of the child is the natural guardian - When the child had lost her mother and when the father was hospitalized for a serious ailment, Maternal Aunts have looked after the child - It is only just and proper that the efforts put by these Aunts is recognized - Court inclined to grant access to the Aunts to meet the child and spend quality time with the child. Indrajit Mahanty & Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. W.P. (Crl.) No. 5214 of 2018 06-02-2019