Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 7/27/2009 12:00:00 AM
  Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
  Parties Deepak Kapila .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent
  Appeal Bails - Crl. Misc. No. M-18527 of 2009
  Act Criminal Procedure Code - 438
  Judgement
  Order : Deepak Kapila has filed the instant petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.136 dated 01.07.2009, under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 470, 472, 473, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. According to the prosecution version, complainant Varun Bansal, Director of M/s A. R. Casting Private Limited, invested Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Fifty Lacs) in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited (in short – ofto pay Rs.26,00,000/- in cash within thirty days of the encashment of cheques and drafts given by the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that the petitioner did not pay the said amount of Rs.26,00,000/-. After about three months, the petitioner gave a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/-, which was dishonoured. Thereafter, the petitioner gave three cheques of Rs.50,000/- each, but the same were also dishonoured. Another grievance is that the amount was to be invested in mutual funds, but has been invested in Premier Life Pension. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the insurance policy was issued in favour of Vishal Bansal and not in favour of Varun Bansal complainant. However, the prosecution has pointed out that both Vishal Bansal and Varun Bansal are Directors of M/s A. R. Casting Private Limited and the amount was paid from the said Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended that ICICI Company does not deal in mutual funds and in fact, the insurance policy gave period of 15 days for switch over or withdrawal of the amount, but no such option was exercised by the insured. It is also contended that in fact, the insured had exercised switching option to different investment plans during the period of 1¼ years before the lodging of FIR and therefore, it cannot be said that the amount was invested in a different plan than agreed to. There appears to be some prima facie force in the contention. Learned State counsel, however, vehemently contended that the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.26,00,000/- as per agreement (Annexure P-5), but did not pay the same and cheques for lesser amounts given by the petitioner were also dishonoured. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not signatory of the agreement (Annexure P-5) and his purported signatures thereon have been forged. However, this contention cannot be accepted, at this stage. It is the prosecution case that the agreement (Annexure P-5) was executed and the petitioner is signatory thereof. The petitioner is said to have issued cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- from the account of his friend and subsequently issued three cheques of Rs.50,000/- each from his own account. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail, without meaning to express any opinion, whatsoever, on merits. Dismissed.