Skip to main content

Misrepresentation which can be verified or detected....not cheating

In a significant judgment that will change the way beneficiaries of multiple plot allotment are prosecuted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that misrepresentation for allotment of a second flat will not amount to cheating if it can be verified and detected.
“Even if it is assumed that the prosecution story is correct and a wrong representation was made, the housing board had the means to verify whether any property stood in the name of the accused or her husband or any other family member. It being so, even the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 420 of the IPC are not made out,” the High Court has ruled.
The respondent was sought to be prosecuted on the grounds that her husband owned a house in Sector 45-C. However, by concealing the fact, she got another flat in Sector 44-B. It was argued on the respondent’s behalf that the flat allotted in Sector 44-B was applied for in 1983 before the acquisition of the house in Sector 45-C in May 1984.
Taking up the matter, Justice Kuldip Singh asserted: “In this case, the allegations are that while seeking the allotment of the second flat, a misrepresentation was made. I am of the view that a misrepresentation, which can be verified and detected, will not amount to cheating…. The present application for grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed”.

 Article referred:http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/misrepresentation-for-allotment-of-2nd-flat-not-cheating-if-verifiable-hc/206606.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more