Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Pasumai Irrigation Limited, A Company ... vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Limited, Rep. ... on 13 March, 2003

M/S.Pondicherry Industrial Promotion vs M/S.Shasun Leasing And Finance on 21 June, 2011

The first petitioner is entitled to proceed only against the respondent/complainant in respect of the outstanding amount. This could be prima facie seen from the payment of interest of Rs.18 lakhs by the respondent/complainant throughout for five years. This is purely a civil transaction and it could be evidenced from the documents and there cannot be any criminal intention for the petitioners 2 and 3 in a transaction to perform in the public duty. According to the Judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (2) CTC 270 in between Pasumai Irrigation Ltd. V. Mansi Finance Ltd, it has been laid down as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

D. Basanthkumar Ranka, B. Kapil And B. ... vs State Represented By The Inspector Of ... on 28 September, 2007

8. The next limb of contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that going by the allegations in the F.I.R., it would only reveal a civil remedy, available to the de facto complainant, for which also, he is not entitled, since the claim got time barred. It is his further contention that once a civil remedy is available to the parties, they cannot seek the remedy under criminal law. On this aspect, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Pasumai Irrigation Limited v. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Limited , in which it is held that only the civil Court is having competent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute and once the civil jurisdiction is open for such disputes, no criminal complaint could be lodged either with the police or with the Magistrate nor could it be entertained, unless the police or the Magistrate concerned is personally interested in such matters or for personal bargains so as to usurp the civil jurisdiction in misuse of the power given to them by law.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Palanivelu - Full Document

P.Palanivel vs Inspector Of Police on 29 June, 2011

4.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that P.W.1 has preferred a private complaint without approaching the concerned police. Only on the basis of the complaint sent by the learned Magistrate, Paramathi Vellore, the case has been registered in Cr.No.233 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 193, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. As per the decision reported in 2003 (2) CTC 270 (M/S.Pasumai Irrigation Limited v. M/S.Mansi Finance (Chennai) Limited), a private complaint can be entertained only when complaint to police is either refused to be registered or after entertaining complaint, police has referred the case as mistake of law or fact, or undetectable case or case of civil nature. The Magistrate cannot usurp the jurisdiction of police by entertaining private complaint at the first instance without prior complaint to police.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document
1