TT Epaper LHS
The Telegraph
TT Mobile
 
 
IN TODAY'S PAPER
WEEKLY FEATURES
CITY NEWSLINES
FEEDS
  RSS
  My Yahoo!
SEARCH
 
Archives Web
 
ARCHIVES
Since 1st March, 1999
 
THE TELEGRAPH
 
CIMA Gallary
 
Email This Page
STREET LEGAL

It isn't cheating

An enterprise issued blank cheques signed by its managing director and handed them over to another company with which it was doing some business. Later, when the latter was asked to return the unused cheques, it claimed that all the cheques had been used. The Supreme Court ruled that the misuse of blank cheques did not amount to cheating. It held that to establish cheating, fraudulent intention had to be proved right at the outset. As the cheques had been used for something that they had not originally been intended for, the court ruled that the case was one of misappropriation of funds. (M/s Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills vs M/s Rajvir Industries Ltd and Ors)

Can’t wait long

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that the issuance or renewal of a passport could not indefi-nitely await clearance by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Some applicants whose passports were neither issued nor declined had approached the court. Going by a manual issued by the ministry of external affairs, the court ruled that when the police verification had not taken place, the authority had to take a decision based on the instruction of the chief passport officer. In any case, the purpose of obtaining a police verification report was to help the officer decide on the matter. An adverse police report did not make a citizen unworthy of obtaining a passport. (Anwar-ul-Haq vs Union of India)

Not his fault

Before retiring as the headmaster of a government school, an individual had taught at a government-aided school for about six months. His pay was calculated on the basis of 15 years of continuous service. After a decade, an audit found that his service had not been continuous. When the government decided to recover the excess pay, the Kerala High Court ruled that the pay could not be recovered on the auditors’ objection after so many years. The court based its judgement on earlier decisions that had said that recovery could only be made if the employee had been responsible for the mistake in any way. (Narayanan vs State of Kerala)

Top
Email This Page