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

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
Categories Criminal Cases, Legal Disputes

The Indian Evidence Act 1872

113. Proof of cession of territory.—A notification in the Official Gazette that any portion of British territory has 1[before the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, ch. 2)] been ceded to any Native State, Prince or Ruler, shall be conclusive proof that a valid cession of such territory took place at the date mentioned in such notification.

113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

113B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).]

113. राज्यक्षेत्र के अध्यर्पण का सबूत- शासकीय राजपत्र में यह अधिसूचना कि ब्रिटिश राज्यक्षेत्र का कोई भाग किसी भारतीय राज्य, राजा या शासक को गवर्नमेंट आफ इंडिया ऐक्ट 1935 के भाग 3 के प्रारम्भ से पूर्व (26 ज.5, अ.2) अध्यर्पित किया गया है, इस बात का निश्चायक सबूत होगा कि ऐसे राज्यक्षकत्र का ऐसी अधिसूचना में वर्णित तारीख को विधिमान्य अध्यर्पण हुआ।

113-क. किसी विवाहित स्त्री द्वारा आत्महत्या के दुष्प्रेरण के बारे में उपधारणा- जब प्रश्न यह है कि किसी स्त्री द्वारा आत्महत्या का करना उसके पति या उसके पति के किसी नाते दार द्वारा दुष्प्रेरित किया गया है और यह दर्शित किया गया है कि उसने अपने विवाह की तारीख से सात वर्ष की अवधि के भीतर आत्महत्या की थी और यह कि उसके पति या उसके पति के ऐसे ठेकेदार ने उसके प्रति क्रूरता की थी, तो न्यायालय मामले की सभी अन्य परिस्थितियों को ध्यान में रखते हुए यह उपधारणा कर सकेगा कि ऐसी आत्महत्या उसके पति द्वारा दुष्प्रेरित की गई थी।
स्पष्टीकरण- इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए “क्रूरता” का सही अर्थ है, जो भारतीय दण्ड संहिता (1860 का 45) की धारा 498-क में हैं।

113-ख. दहेज मृत्यु के बारे में उपधारणा- जब प्रश्न यह है कि व्यक्ति ने किसी स्त्री की दहेज मृत्यु की है और यह दर्शित किया जाता है कि मृत्यु के कुछ पूर्व ऐसे व्यक्ति ने दहेज की किसी मांग के लिए या उसके सम्बन्ध में उस स्त्री के साथ क्रूरता की थी या उस को तंग किया था तो न्यायालय यह उपधारणा करेगा कि ऐसे व्यक्ति ने दहेज मृत्यु कारित की थी।
स्पष्टीकरण- इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए “दहेज मृत्यु” का सही अर्थ है, जो भारतीय दण्ड संहिता (1860 का 45) की धारा 304 ख में हैं।

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

Section 138:- Judgement

The Peoples Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Thro.’ Manager Vs. Modi Chandrikaben Harnesh Kumar 2019 (1) G.L.H. 246.

Negotiable instruments Act, 1881-S. 138-Summons triable case based on private complaint filed u/S. 138-Magistrate issued summons u/S.204 of Cr.P.C., recorded plea and followed regular procedure including examination of wit-nesses and adopted summons trial-Appellate Court remanded case to traial court relying upon judgement delivered in case of Nitinbhai Sevantilal Shah-Held, parties are allowed to lead evidence and examine witness-Appellate Court erred in applying ratio of the case in summons triable case.

Section 138:- Judgement

The Peoples Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Thro.’ Manager Vs. Modi Chandrikaben Harnesh Kumar 2019 (1) G.L.H. 246.

વટાવખત અધિનિયમ, 1881-કલમ 138- કલમ 138 હેઠળ સમંસોની કાર્યવાહી બાબત ઉપર ખાનગી ફરિયાદ દાખલ કરેલ- ફોજદારી કાર્યરીતિ સંહિતાની કલમ 204 – હેઠળ- મેજીસ્ટ્રેટે સમન્સો આપેલ, દલીલ નોંધેલ અને સાક્ષીઓને તપાસવા સહિતની નિયમિત કાર્યવાહીને અનુસરેલ અને સમંસોની ઇંસાફી કાર્યવાહી સ્વીકારેલ – નીતિનભાઇ સેવંતીલાલ શાહના કેસના ચુકાદા ઉપર આધાર રાખીને અપીલ અદાલતને કેસ પરત મોકલેલ- ઠરાવ્યુંં પક્ષકારોને પુરાવા રજૂ કરવા અને સાક્ષીઓને તપાસવા મંજુરી આપવામાં આવે છે- અપીલ અદાલતે સમંસોના ઇંસાફી કેસમાં કેસના ગુણોતર લાગુ પાડવામાં ભૂલ કરેલ 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
1 … 42 43 44 45 46 47