Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.59 seconds)

Dr. Madan Mohan Rao vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By ... on 24 February, 1983

10. This court in AM Mohan v. State Represented by SHO & Another8, has observed as follows:"13. It could be thus seen for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed andcapable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada on 18 December, 1996

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14223/2013 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined 9.1 This court, while discussing the expression "entrustment" in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada5, observed that it carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general significance, all its imports is handing over the possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferment of any proprietary right therein. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed,must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold iton account of some person or in some way for his benefit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 276 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next