Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of Patiala vs S.K. Mathur on 9 February, 2011

State vs . S.K. Mathur Etc. Fir No.461/04 on 16 November, 2019

11. The relations between the accused herein, who were running the establishment in the name of M/s Aapka Bazar Jaipur Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant PW1 came into picture after the execution of franchisee agreement Ex.PW1/C. Through the averments in the said franchisee agreement or in it advertisement floated by them, it has to be seen as to whether the ingredients of the offence u/s 415 or 406 IPC are made out or not. The execution of the said agreement Ex.PW1/C is not disputed by either of the parties and, in fact, PW1 in his cross examination admitted to the fact that he had signed the said agreement after going through the contents of the same. Thus, his testimony rules out the possibility of the said agreement being somehow got signed from him under mis­ impression or the terms being not clear to him. It is also not disputed that the accused State vs. S.K. Mathur etc. FIR no.461/04 7 persons, namely, Meena Mathur and Shefali Mathur were the Directors in the said company, and therefore, responsible for the day­to­day affairs of the said company. As far as the accused S.K. Mathur is concerned, his role in the company was that of managing the affairs but without having any formal designation. The PW1 clearly reiterated the said fct that all the accused persons met him when he went to their office at Connaught Place and had explained the terms of the scheme to him. Thus, all the accused persons chargesheeted were running the affairs of the said company and were dealing with the complainant herein.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . S.K. Mathur And Ors. on 7 January, 2023

15. During the course of his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, complainant/PW-1 admitted that at the time of receiving the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the company had issued him the receipts, in respect of the payment being made by him. During the course of his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, he also admitted that as per the agreement Mark P2, the company was supposed to provide him goods for sale as well as the infrastructure but, the space for the shop was meant to be arranged by the complainant. He also admitted that he had not handed over any bank returning memo to the IO, to establish that the cheques State Vs. S.K. Mathur and Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

_____ vs Sh. S. K. Mathur on 4 May, 2011

8. PW-1 Sh. Amit Tiwary filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. In his depositions, he testified the facts averred in the plaint. He proved Application Form Ex.PW-1/1 and Statement of Account maintained by the plaintiff-bank in its ordinary and regular course of business and certified by the plaintiff-bank under Bankers Books of Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/3. He proved Statement of Transactions for the period from 14.10.2004 to 15.11.2007 Ex.PW-1/3. Copy of legal notice dated 24.11.2005 is Mark A and Postal receipt is Mark B. From the documentary evidence on record in the from of Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/3, it is proved that the Suit no.1212/08 3/5 VIJAYA BANK V. S. K. MATHUR defendant had applied for issuance of a credit card to the plaintiff-bank on 23.09.2004. The defendant had utilized the said card for making purchases and he failed to make the payment of bill amount, and as such, a sum of Rs.52,829/- was due from the defendant as on 31.10.2007.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Muradiya vs . Rajender Paswan on 12 December, 2018

6. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that on 29.09.2018 the revisionist had appeared along with proxy counsel before Ld. Trial Court and sought pass over for 2 PM as the main counsel for the revisionist was held in Rohini Court in a case titled as Anil Aneja Vs. Rajiv Kumar Aneja for addressing arguments and also in case State Vs. S.K. Mathur but the Ld. Trial Court granted the pass over till 1 PM. It is further contended that main counsel for the revisionist could not reach before lunch and even though his associate counsel Sh. R.K. Solanki was very much ready to cross examine the complainant without any objection of the accused but Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the prayer of the associate counsel to cross examine the complainant and closed the right of the revisionist.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Balussery Benefit Chit Fund (P) Ltd vs ) Mr. Aleyamma Mathew on 10 January, 2019

19 From perusal of the above stated provisions of law and judgments, it is apparent that claim against the guarantor is not divisible, it is not an independent claim. It is apparent when a joint claim has been preferred against principal debtor and surety and the suit proceedings stood Suit No. 94925/16 abated qua principal debtor, the question of continuance of the suit against guarantor would not arise. In such circumstances, section 134 of Indian Contract Act would apply and surety would stand discharge. Once the suit stands abated against defendant no­1/principal debtor, the result would be that the suit is dismissed qua him, if the claim is decreed against guarantors it would be a conflict between the decree of dismissal passed against principal debtor and therefore, it would lead to the court passing a decree, which has even otherwise has become final with respect to the same subject matter. (Reliance being placed on State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Mathur, ILR (2011) III Delhi 160) 20 Coming to the facts of present case, it is apparent from order dated 19.11.2012, that the suit against principal debtor i.e. defendant no­1, was dismissed for non­ prosecution i.e. dismissed for non filing of P.F., through written as dismissal, it was in fact rejection of plaint qua defendant No. 1, as per order 7 Rule 11 (f) CPC. It is to be noted that this order was not reversed in any appeal or revision. In fact, no appeal or revision from that order was ever filed. Thus, the order of dismissal/rejection of the suit for non­prosecution against principal debtor i.e. defendant Suit No. 94925/16 no­1 attained finality. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that after dismissal of the present suit against defendant no­ 1, he filed any other recovery suit against defendant no­1 within the period of limitation. Thus, plaintiff forgo all his legal remedies against defendant no­1 due to his own omission, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of principal debtor. In these circumstances, Section 134 of Indian Contract Act would come into play and even the guarantors i.e. defendants no. 3 and 5 would also stand discharged from paying the liability. The judgments relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are of no use as in the present matter a joint claim was preferred against principal debtor and the sureties, while the judgments relied upon by him were about filing of separate claim against the surety without even joining the principal debtor. 21 Further more, the plaintiff did not came before the court with clean hands. It suppressed material facts in the plaint. It did not mention that any LIC Policy was taken from the principal debtor as security. It was also not disclosed that they have received the surrender value of the policy to recover the due amount. Though, these facts were admitted by PW­1 in his cross­examination. Even in his cross­examination, PW­1 did not mention the amount received by them as surrender value of that policy. It is to Suit No. 94925/16 be noted that as per Section 141 of Indian Contract Act, a surety is entitled to the benefit of every security, which the creditor has against the principal debtor at the time when the contract of surety shift, is entered into.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1