Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)

Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 19 September, 2016

In   the   case   of   Sampelly  (Supra)   the   Supreme   Court  referred to its earlier decision in the case of Indus Airways Private Limited   v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539  and  distinguished the same in the facts of that case by observation as under:­ Page 9 of 13 HC-NIC Page 9 of 13 Created On Wed Aug 16 08:40:06 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/6595/2015 ORDER
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 492 - A K Goel - Full Document

Hmt Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr on 19 March, 2015

14     In HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida, (2015) 11 SCC 776 relied   upon on behalf of the respondent, this Court dealt with the contention   that the proceedings under Section 138 were liable to be quashed as   the   cheques   were   given   as   "security"   as   per   defence   of   the   accused.   Negativing the contention, this Court held :­  "10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of   Page 10 of 13 HC-NIC Page 10 of 13 Created On Wed Aug 16 08:40:06 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/6595/2015 ORDER the   view   that   the   accused   (Respondent   1)   challenged   the   proceedings   of   criminal   complaint   cases   before   the   High   Court,   taking   factual   defences.   Whether   the   cheques   were   given   as   security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not   is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the   trial court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion,   the High Court should not have expressed its view on the disputed   questions  of fact in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of   Criminal Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is not   made   out.   The   High   Court   has   erred   in   law   in   going   into   the   factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the   parties.  The  High   Court  further  erred   in  observing  that  Section   138(b)   of   the   NI   Act   stood   uncomplied   with,   even   though   Respondent 1 (accused) had admitted that he replied to the notice   issued   by   the   complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 233 - P C Pant - Full Document

Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors on 9 January, 2008

In   Suryalakshmi   Cotton   Mills   Ltd.   v.   Rajvir   Industries   Ltd.   [(2008)   13   SCC   678],   this   Court   has   made   the   following   observations explaining the parameters of jurisdiction of the High   Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code   of Criminal Procedure: (SCC pp. 685­87, paras 17 & 22)  "17.   The   parameters   of   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   in  exercising   its   jurisdiction   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal Procedure is now well settled. Although it is of wide   amplitude,   a   great   deal   of   caution   is   also   required   in   its   exercise. What is required is application of the well­known legal   principles involved in the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 205 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rallis India Ltd vs Poduru Vidya Bhusan & Ors on 13 April, 2011

12. In Rallis India Ltd. v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan [(2011) 13 SCC   88], this Court expressed its views on this point as under: (SCC p.   93, para 12)  "12. At the threshold, the High Court should not have interfered   with the cognizance of the complaints having been taken by the   trial   court.   The   High   Court   could   not   have   discharged   the   respondents   of   the   said   liability   at   the   threshold.   Unless   the   parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible   to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the date when   the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the   respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 141 - D Verma - Full Document
1