Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 102 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Nageshwar Prasad Singh Alias Sinha vs Narayan Singh And Anr. on 2 April, 1998

Mehul Chinubhai Choksi vs State Of Gujarat & on 5 May, 2017

33 I may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the  case   of  Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narayan Singh,  AIR  1999 SC 1480. In the said case, the allegation of the prosecution was  that an agreement was signed between the complainant respondent and  the appellant whereby some land was agreed to be sold by the appellant  to the complainant on a consideration, and allegedly a part thereof was  Page 44 of 57 HC-NIC Page 44 of 57 Created On Sat May 06 01:24:48 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/4758/2015 CAV JUDGMENT paid   as   earnest   money,   the   balance   being   payable   in   the   manner  indicated in the deed. The most important term in the deed was that the  possession of the plot would stand transferred to the complainant and  possession   in   fact   was   delivered   to   the   complainant   over   which   they  made certain constructions. The complaint was laid on the basis that the  appellant had cheated the complainant of the sum of money he had paid  as earnest money as his subsequent conduct reflected that he was not  willing to complete the bargain for which the complainant had to file a  suit for specific performance which was pending in the civil court. Held,  that latter part of illustration (g) to Section 415, I.P.C. illustrates that at  the   time when  agreement for  sell  was  executed, it  could have, in  no  event, been termed dishonestly so as to hold that the complainant was  cheated of the earnest money, which they passed to the appellant as part  consideration and possession of the total amount involved in the bargain  was passed over to the complainant/respondent and which remained in  their possession. Now it is left to imagine who would be interested for  dealing   the   matter   for   completing   the   bargain   when   admittedly   the  complainants have not performed their part in making the full payment.  The   matter   was,   therefore,   before   the   civil   court   in   this   respect.   The  liability, if any, arising out by breaching thereof was civil in nature and  not   criminal.   Accordingly,   the   appeal   was   allowed   and   complaint  proceedings were quashed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 3 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Ram Chandra Prasad Keshri And Ors. vs The State Of U.P. And Anr. on 16 March, 2000

5. The facts in Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha 1998 AIR SCW 4007 (supra) are some what different. In that case the accused was summoned to face a criminal charge under Section 420, I.P.C. The allegation against him was that he entered into an agreement for sale with the complainants in respect of certain property and delivered possession thereof to them, but subsequently he backed out from the agreement and did not execute the sale deed. According to complainants, the said act of the accused amounted to 'cheating' punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. It may be noted, simultaneously they also filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Taking all these facts into account, their Lordships held that the liability of the accused, if any arising out of breach of contract was civil in nature.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - R Dash - Full Document

Narayan Chandra Mukherjee And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 12 September, 2000

21. The other argument of the earned Counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against them do not constitute any criminal offence and at best it can be a breach of service condition, I must say that such argument is also not sustainable in view of the allegation in the complaint-petition which prima facie satisfies the ingredients of the offences under Section 405, I.P.C. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint-petition are not merely the breach of the contract of service rather it also makes out a case under Section 408, 418, I.P.C. I am, therefore, of the view that the decision cited by Mr. Gadodia, as referred in the case of Mohd. Sajjad v. State of Bihar 2000 (1) East Cr.C. 58, R.P. Mathur v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1998 (2) PLJR 288, H.P. Chamaria v. B.K. Sureka , Trilok Singh v. S.D. Tripathy , Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar 1999 (2) PLJR 913, Ishwar Chandra v. State of Bihar 1998 (3) PLJR 322, Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Narayan Singh and Anr. do not help the petitioners to support their contention that their prosecution is illegal on the ground that the allegation against them only constitute the breach of the service contract.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A K Sinha - Full Document

Dr. Tirupati Panigrahi And Others vs State Of Orissa ... Opp. Party on 4 April, 2013

15. The first contention of the petitioners is that the case is of civil nature and the criminal proceedings are not sustainable in law. At best a 11 case for breach of contract simpliciter may be made out i.e. failure to keep promises within the agreed period. Offence of cheating cannot be made out. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and another, (2005) 10 SCC 228; All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another, 2007 AIR SCW 6667; Nageswar Prasad Singh alias Sinha vs. Narayan Singh and another, 1998 (15) OCR (SC) 542; Srimati Sabita Sundari Sahoo vs. State of Orissa, 2005(31) OCR 640 and in the case of Mukul Kumar Verma v. State of Orissa, 2010 (II) OLR 243, it was submitted that breach of contract simpliciter committed by the petitioners will not constitute any offence under Sections 420 and 406, IPC.
Orissa High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next