Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)

M/S Thermax Ltd.& Ors vs K.M.Johny & Ors on 27 September, 2011

In these circumstances, learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 1) Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NEPC India Limited (1 supra), 2) Thermax Limited and others v. K.M. Johny and others (2supra) 3) Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd., and another (3 supra). A careful reading of the above decisions, it shows that there exists a written contract of agreement between the parties after part performance of the contract agreement, the disputes arose. Considering the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it amounts to breach of contract as there is no dishonest intention from the beginning of the transaction and it does not give rise to initiation of criminal proceedings for non-performance of the contract agreement. Hence, the above three cases would not help to the case of the petitioner. This court, having accepted the contentions of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the petitioner without having stock worth of Rs.2.00 crores of maize corn with fraudulent 12 MGR, J CRL.P.No.7562 of 2018 and dishonest intention, induced the 2nd respondent-complainant to part with Rs.50.00 towards advance for supply of maize corn would certainly attract the provisions of Section 415 and 420 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 353 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors on 2 February, 1982

In support of his contention, he placed reliance on State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others (1982) 1 SCC 561, wherein it is held that when the complaint disclosed an offence, the court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generously allow the investigation into the offence to be completed by collecting material for proving the offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 711 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1