Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 7742 (6.01 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Indian Oil Corporation vs M/S Nepc India Ltd., & Ors on 20 July, 2006

M/S.Cholamandalam Investment & vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2019

37.Mr.N.Sriprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEFC India Ltd. & Ors (SC) [(2006) 6 SCC 736], to explain as to whether there is entrustment in the hypothecation. In our considered view, we need not go into this aspect to examine the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. We have taken note of all the decisions, which have interprepted identical agreements and are of the firm view that the assessee is liable for payment of sales tax.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

M/S Cott Beverages Inc (Royal Crown Cola ... vs M/S Tristar Beverages Pvt Ltd Through ... on 18 June, 2018

The present case is an effort to settle the dispute and claims which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through prosecution and deserves to be deprecated, as held by the apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd., (supra). The complainant has gone to the extent in impleading the petitioner Company, the Head of the Company and all senior Officers of the Company as accused persons and the complaint does not ascribe any specific role to any of the accused individual persons as to how they are liable for offences mentioned in the complaint.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kripa Nath Mishra & Ors vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 24 September, 2025

40. It is trite law that a complaint is not required to set out verbatim the statutory ingredients of the offence alleged. So long as the complaint lays down the necessary factual foundation, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that certain ingredients have not been stated with particular elaboration. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only in cases where it is wholly bereft of the fundamental facts essential to constitute the alleged offence. [Ref: Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Others (supra)]
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh P Sheth vs State Rep. By on 20 November, 2017

(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. The aforesaid extract is a portion of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments which came to be considered in the judgment cited by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent. When these principles that came to be analysed in the said judgments is read in toto, it may not be of much help to the respondent since these principles also indicates that when the complaint does not prima facie constitute any offence or where it is the clear abuse of process of Court or it is a purely a civil wrong, the same can be quashed. What is applicable to a complaint will also be equally applicable to an FIR. The following paragraphs of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

Priya Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 12 March, 2019

15. It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of this Court vide State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next