Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 957 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.,Calcutta on 9 July, 1996

Milan Anandan Son Of Sri A.K. Anandan, ... vs States Of U.P., Through The Secretary, ... on 29 September, 2005

21. The petitioners in our view could not be attributed any mens rea of cheating the government or the farmers. Reliance may be placed in the cases of (i) "C.B.I. v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta- 1996 AIR SCW 3019 (ii) "Sushila Rani v. I.-T. Commr" = 2002 AIR SCW 485 (iii) "Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Delhi"= 2003 AIR SCW 2735
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - K N Ojha - Full Document

Cbi vs Ms Jas Infrastructure Capital Pvt Ltd ., ... on 6 June, 2025

795. Vide note dt. 04.11.2006 [at Pg. 3-4/n in D-37], R.N. Singh had proposed detailed guidelines which provided for checking of applications before sending them to other stakeholders. In the previous round i.e. 31 st to 34th Screening Committee, it is now more than apparent that checking was done CBI Vs. M/s JICPL & Ors. (Judgment dated 06.06.2025) Page No. 282 of 343 and two lists of complete and incomplete applications were prepared. It has been so held by Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, the then learned Special Judge PC Act, CBI, Coal Block Cases-01, RADC in Grace Industries case and also by me in the case of Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. It appeals to common sense that when a procedure followed in earlier round is specifically included for fresh round also, it must have been followed. It is noteworthy that there is no noting in MoC file that no checking was ever done. There is further no noting that fact of non-checking was ever brought to notice of superior officers.
Delhi District Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Darbara Singh Sandhu on 8 July, 2013

In, C.B.I., New Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta 1996(5) SCC 591 which also fully applies on the facts of the present case, it is also held that accused disposing of goods which he had hypothecated, no offence of criminal breach of trust is made out. I find that law cited by learned counsel for the respondent fully applies on the facts of the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

Shri Bhuwan Kumar Chaturvedi, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Spl.Pp., Cbi Cases, ... on 26 September, 2018

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in C.B.I, SPE, SIU (X) New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Limited, Calcutta (referred supra), while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, had discussed about the constituents of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and adverted to the definition of 'cheating under Section 415 IPC, wherein it was noted 53 MSM,J Crl.P_1682_2013 that 'cheating' consists of fraudulently and dishonestly inducing a person by deceiving him to deliver any property or to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. The two essential ingredients of offence would be i) to make a false statement so as to deceive any person, and ii) fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver any property or to do or omit to do something.
Telangana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 564/02 1 State vs . Ghanshyam Paliwal on 28 April, 2011

I am further fortified in this view by the judgment in "C.B.I. v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta" 1996 AIR SCW 3019, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2452 wherein it was observed­ ''26. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, it appears to us that for the purpose of quashing the complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jik Industries Ltd. And Another vs Sunil Ranchorlal Bajaj And Another on 26 August, 2008

This court considered the decision of the Apex Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) and in particular what is observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 28 and 29 thereof. This court held that the said decision of the Apex Court cannot be read as laying down a proposition of law that in every case where there is a compromise in a money suit instituted by the bank against the borrower, the criminal prosecution against the borrower cannot be proceeded with. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next