Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Mrs. Namrata Chopra vs Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed Qureshi on 15 March, 2012 cites

State Of Kerala vs A. Pareed Pillai And Anr. on 28 April, 1972

7. Same transaction or same set of facts may give rise to both, a civil liability and criminal offence but mens rea is an essential ingredient of offence of cheating. To establish a charge of cheating, it is necessary to show that the intention to deceive was in existence at the time of making the promise. For this, reference may be made to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai AIR 1973 SC 326 and reiterated in series of decisions including the one in S.N. Palnitkar v. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 2960.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 123 - H R Khanna - Full Document

S.W. Palanitkar And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 October, 2001

7. Same transaction or same set of facts may give rise to both, a civil liability and criminal offence but mens rea is an essential ingredient of offence of cheating. To establish a charge of cheating, it is necessary to show that the intention to deceive was in existence at the time of making the promise. For this, reference may be made to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai AIR 1973 SC 326 and reiterated in series of decisions including the one in S.N. Palnitkar v. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 2960.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2481 - Full Document

M/S Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.& ... vs Md Sharaful Haque & Anr on 1 November, 2004

14. In the light of the factual scenario as highlighted above and the well-settled position of law on the subject, even if the allegations are taken up at their face value and accepted in its entirety, no offence of cheating would be made out against the petitioners. Their case clearly falls within category nos.(1) and (7) of the cases, attracting interference under inherent powers, as summarized by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 and re-stated in Zandu Pharmaceutical's case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 16299 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007

12. Further, as pointed out by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2008 SC 251, dispute about cancellation of agreement to sell property is a civil dispute and the court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendentta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the proposed vendor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 1931 - D Bhandari - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

14. In the light of the factual scenario as highlighted above and the well-settled position of law on the subject, even if the allegations are taken up at their face value and accepted in its entirety, no offence of cheating would be made out against the petitioners. Their case clearly falls within category nos.(1) and (7) of the cases, attracting interference under inherent powers, as summarized by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 and re-stated in Zandu Pharmaceutical's case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1