Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. & Ors. vs S.K. Aggarwal & Ors on 18 September, 2009

Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 1 December, 2009

18. I do not find any error whatsoever in the order of dismissal of the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. I have otherwise also recently in Vinedale Distilleries Ltd Vs S.K. Aggarwal MANU/DE/2261/2009 and for detailed reasons given therein held that ordinarily applications under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. ought not to be filed or taken up before the lis between the parties is adjudicated in the suit. Till said adjudication, the Court cannot be expected to arrive at a finding of falsehood in the pleadings of any of the parties. If such falsehood does not require any trial, then there would be no occasion for recording evidence and the suit itself can be disposed of. However, whenever issues have been framed and trial ordered, it cannot be said till the final adjudication of the suit as to the version of which party is false.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Rajinder & Ors. vs Harsh Vohra & Ors. on 1 December, 2009

18. I do not find any error whatsoever in the order of dismissal of the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. I have otherwise also recently in Vinedale Distilleries Ltd Vs S.K. Aggarwal MANU/DE/2261/2009 and for detailed reasons given therein held that ordinarily applications under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. ought not to be filed or taken up before the lis between the parties is adjudicated in the suit. Till said adjudication, the Court cannot be expected to arrive at a finding of falsehood in the pleadings of any of the parties. If such falsehood does not require any trial, then there would be no occasion for recording evidence and the suit itself can be disposed of. However, whenever issues have been framed and trial ordered, it cannot be said till the final adjudication of the suit as to the version of which party is false.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Rashi Misra vs B Kalyana Raman on 26 April, 2022

8. The petitioner additionally moved an application under Section 340, CrPC, for initiation of proceedings against the respondent for perjury, for having suppressed the aforesaid lease deed dated 18 th November, 2018. The learned ADJ has rejected this application as pre-mature, opining that the issue of perjury could not be decided at an initial stage and would require leading of evidence. For this purpose, the learned ADJ has relied on the judgment of this Court in Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. v. S.K. Aggarwal3, which holds that, till the lis between the parties is adjudicated, the Court could not arrive at a finding of falsehood.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1