Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 345 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Birla Corporation Ltd. vs Adventz Investments And Holdings Ltd. on 9 May, 2019

Mr. P. B. Vinod Kumar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 30 August, 2023

28. The matter is remitted to the Court of the learned 13th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, for considering the matter a fresh as per the relevant provision of law, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the judgment [Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Supra)] referred to in this order/judgment without being influenced by the order of this Court and also being guided by the judgment in S.S. Binu vs. State of West Bengal (Supra) and Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (Supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. N Bharath Reddy vs Sri. C Sunil Kumar on 6 October, 2023

34. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal 39 proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 713]; Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.] Allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken on the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. The inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances. When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued."
Karnataka High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Nutan Gaur vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 2 May, 2024

34. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been Signature Not Verified initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance Digitally Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR CRL.M.C. 597/2024 Page 10 of 12 Signing Date:22.05.2024 17:24:02 and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 :
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Managing Director And Chief Executive ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 November, 2024

23. The proceedings in this case no. C-76 of 2022 is for offences punishable under Sections 500/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The nature of allegations in the petition of complaint needs an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to ascertain the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation for issuance of process (Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. & Ors. (Supra)).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gayasoddin S/O. Saheblal Sayyad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 July, 2019

7] Thus, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & others (supra), the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Since the orders were passed without conduct of enquiry, it is necessary that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the case be remanded back to the trial Court to pass fresh order after conducting enquiry as contemplated u/s 202(2) of the Cr.P.C. 8] In the result, the applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause [C]. The impugned orders dated 6.3.2019 and 2.3.2019 passed in SCC No.149/2019 and SCC No.61/2019 respectively by learned J.M.F.C., Paithan Dist.Aurangabad are quashed and set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to decide the cases afresh after conducting enquiry as contemplated u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. and then to pass appropriate order as ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 22:48:00 ::: Cr.Appln.1403/19 & another
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V L Achliya - Full Document

Manohar Bhasin Hazooria & Anr vs The State & Anr on 1 September, 2023

34. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that CRL.M.C. 1551/2014 Signature Not Verified Page 10 of 14 Digitally Signed By:RANJU BHALLA Signing Date:01.09.2023 17:46:16 criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 713]; Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Sri Shivanaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2023

34. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 713]; Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.] Allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken on the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. The inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances. When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued."
Karnataka High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri.N. Suryanarayana Reddy vs Smt.N.Poornima on 6 October, 2023

34. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 713]; Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.] Allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken on the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. The inherent powers of the court can and should be 35 exercised in such circumstances. When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued."
Karnataka High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next