Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 16 August, 2017

Author: Sabina

Bench: Sabina

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 165 / 2017
                                In
       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2714/2016
1. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Through Associate Attorney
Luv. S. Kapil Son of Shri Sushil Kumar, 3B, DLF Corporate Park, S-
block Qutab Enclave, Phase-III, Gurgaon Road, Haryana 122002.




2.   Atreyi   Bose       D/o   Dr.   Sanjay     Kumar    Bose,    Customer
Development Manager, 3B, DLF Corporate Park, S-block Qutab
Enclave,      Phase-III,       Gurgaon        Road,     Haryana    122002




3. Pavan Pandey Son of Shri Mahendra Singh, Area Sales
Incharge, 3B, DLF Corporate Park, S-block Qutab Enclave, Phase-
III, Gurgaon Road, Haryana 122002.

                                                            ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan and Another


2. Satvindar Singh Son of Late Sh. Pratap Singh, Proprietor of
Kushi Enterprises 534, Near Gurudwara, Ralway Station, Kota
Rajasthan.

                                                          ----Respondents

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, P.P. Mr. Rajneesh Gutpa for respondent No.2 _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order 16/08/2017 (2 of 2) [CRLMA-165/2017] Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the Court while hearing the arguments on 02.03.2017, had decided that respondent No.2 would be at liberty to avail his appropriate civil remedy with regard to the balance amount but due to inadvertence, the said finding could not be incorporated in the order dated 02.03.2017. Hence, the order dated 02.03.2017 is liable to be modified to this extent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent No.2.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. Order dated 02.03.2017 is clarified to the extent that respondent No.2 would be at liberty to seek appropriate civil remedy with regard to the balance amount in question between the parties, if so advised.

(SABINA) J.

S.Kumawat Jr. P.A.