Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.58 seconds)
M/S Sandhu Security Service vs State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2025 cites

Anju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 13 December, 2012

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 11.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-29708-2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15719-2005 titled 'Dhan Raj Jain and another Vs. State of Haryana and another', judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2012 titled 'Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another', Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 titled 'Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I', Criminal Appeal No.1133, 1134 of 2009 titled 'Jeewan Kumar Raut Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2003 titled 'Saumindra Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar and another' and Privy Council Appeal No.11 of 1936 titled 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 232 - S Kumar - Full Document

Suresh Nanda vs C.B.I on 24 January, 2008

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 11.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-29708-2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15719-2005 titled 'Dhan Raj Jain and another Vs. State of Haryana and another', judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2012 titled 'Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another', Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 titled 'Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I', Criminal Appeal No.1133, 1134 of 2009 titled 'Jeewan Kumar Raut Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2003 titled 'Saumindra Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar and another' and Privy Council Appeal No.11 of 1936 titled 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr vs C.B.I on 7 July, 2009

It was held in Jeewan Kumar Raut's case (supra) that the TOHO Act is a special statute and will override the provisions of Cr.P.C. so far as there is any conflict between the provisions of the two enactments and filing of a police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was held to be forbidden by necessary implication under the TOHO Act whereas in the present case, the offence under Section 406 of IPC and the offence under Section 85 of the ESI Act and the offence under Section 14 of the EPF Act are distinct and different and there is no conflict between the provisions of these two enactments. Rather, misappropriation of the contribution towards ESI and provident fund have been specifically held to be punishable under Section 406 of IPC. As such, Jeewan Kumar Raut's case (supra) cannot be of any help to the petitioner. Likewise, judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Kumar Sandhu's case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, as the dispute in that case pertained to non-payment of Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 94 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Nasir Ahmad And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 12 May, 1927

In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment dated 11.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-29708-2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15719-2005 titled 'Dhan Raj Jain and another Vs. State of Haryana and another', judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2039 of 2012 titled 'Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another', Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 titled 'Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I', Criminal Appeal No.1133, 1134 of 2009 titled 'Jeewan Kumar Raut Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', Criminal Appeal No.569 of 2003 titled 'Saumindra Bhattacharya Vs. State of Bihar and another' and Privy Council Appeal No.11 of 1936 titled 'Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 629 - Full Document

Rita Agencies, Rep. By Its Partner Rajan ... vs The Enforcement Officer, Employees ... on 1 April, 2003

In support of her contention, learned State counsel has cited judgment dated 22.10.2024 15 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 08:24:17 ::: CRM-M-33443-2016 (O&M) 16 passed by the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 790 of 2024 titled 'S. Mohammed Nowfal vs. State of Kerala', 2023 INSC 710 titled 'Dhanraj N Asawani Vs. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi and others' 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 796 titled 'M/s Rita Agencies Vs. Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization and another', 2007 LLR 1172 'Ram Prasad Sao and other Vs. State of Bihar and others', Law finder Id# 2225117 titled 'Dhirendra Kumar Rajak Vs. State of Haryana and another'.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Dhirendra Kumar Rajak vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 February, 2023

18. Coming to the facts of the present case, the first grievance of the petitioner is that Section 14 of the EPF Act prescribes penalties and Section 14-AB provides that no cognizance can be taken of an offence under the said Act except on a report in writing with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner on the basis of a complaint to be instituted by the Inspector. However, in S. Mohammed Nowfal (supra) as well as in Dhirendra Kumar Rajak (supra), it has been held that the sanction is contemplated only for prosecuting the offences under the EPF Act and no sanction is required for prosecuting the offence under Section 406 of IPC.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Bombay vs S. L. Apte & Another on 9 December, 1960

19. To attract the offences under Sections 14 and 14-AA mens rea is not a necessary ingredient. Therefore, the offence under Section 406 r/w 405 IPC and the offences under Sections 14 and 14-AA of the EPF Act are distinct and different. When ingredients are not identical, and the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy as embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution being applicable. [vide: State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte and Another (AIR 1961 SC 578)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 125 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994

24 of 28 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 08:24:17 ::: CRM-M-33443-2016 (O&M) 25 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanraj N. Asawani's case (supra) has held that Section 4 Cr.P.C. provides that all offences under the IPC shall be investigated, inquired into and tried according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 4(2) structures the application of Cr.P.C. in situations where a special procedure is prescribed under any special enactment, as held in (1994) 3 SCC 299 titled State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh. It has been further held that Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply to all offences under any other law apart from IPC. However, the application of the Cr.P.C. will be excluded only where a special law prescribes special procedures to be dealt with in the investigation, inquiry or the trial of the special offence. As already discussed above, in the present case, misappropriation of contribution to the EPF and ESI has been made punishable under Section 406 of IPC as well, in view of Explanation-I and Explanation-II of Section 405 of IPC, which defines criminal breach of trust.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 1785 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 Next