Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Y.N. Kashyap & Ors. vs State Thr. Cbi & Anr. on 16 February, 2012

Vinay Mehra vs State Thr. Cbi & Anr. on 23 November, 2012

11. On behalf of the CBI, Ms.Sonia Mathur, learned Standing Counsel submitted that on entering into settlement with the respondent No.2- Bank, the petitioner has only discharged his civil liability. But so far as criminal offence is concerned, he needs to be prosecuted because huge loss was caused to the public exchequer by fraudulent means on the basis of forged documents. Referring to the allegations against the petitioner in the chargesheet, she submitted that during investigation it was revealed that though payments directly received by M/s. Harrison Tyres from various parties were required to be credited into the account of the company maintained by Bank of India, Connaught Circus Branch, but another account was opened in the name of the company with Bank of Maharashtra, Sonepat Branch where all such cheques and drafts were Crl.M.C. No.474/2012 Page 5 of 18 fraudulently and dishonestly deposited and utilized for the benefit of petitioner Vinay Mehra and others. It has been further submitted that the company M/s. Harrison Tyres was constituted with dishonest intention to avail various credit facilities from the Bank by fraudulent means. She also submitted that as per details given in Annexure-B to the chargesheet, no material was sent by the petitioner, but false lorry receipts were obtained and submitted the bills with the Bank of India, Connaught Circus Branch. Relying on Y.N.Kashyap & Ors. vs. CBI & Anr. Crl.M.C.Nos.944/2010 and 3819/2010, learned counsel for CBI submitted that merely because civil liability has been discharged by the petitioner is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings where the petitioner has played tricks and documents were forged, thus causing huge loss to the bank.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P Rani - Full Document

Manohar Lal Vij vs Cbi & Anr. on 23 November, 2012

15. On behalf of the CBI, Ms.Sonia Mathur, learned Standing Counsel submitted that on entering into settlement with the respondent No.2- Bank, the petitioner has only discharged his civil liability. But so far as criminal offence is concerned, he needs to be prosecuted because huge loss was caused to the public exchequer by fraudulent means on the basis of forged documents. Referring to the allegations against the petitioner in the chargesheet, she submitted that title deeds in respect of a non-existent property were submitted as collateral security and even the sale deed was got executed in respect of 25 sq.yds. and by committing forgery, it was made to appear in respect of plot size of 925 sq.yds. Even the valuation report and the search report by the Advocate, were false as revealed during investigation. Relying on Y.N.Kashyap & Ors. vs. CBI & Anr. Crl.M.C.Nos.944/2010 and 3819/2010, learned counsel for CBI submitted that merely because civil liability has been discharged by the petitioner is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings where the petitioner has played tricks and documents were forged, thus causing huge loss to the bank.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Rani - Full Document
1