Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.15 seconds)
Yamnappa Hanamappa Iddalagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2021 cites

Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency P. Ltd. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 March, 2018

26. Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the fact that the complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to interdict the investigation in this case. On the other hand, the complaint clearly shows that the 55 petitioners were all working in Koppal not only during the period 21.9.2013 to 6.2.2014 but also during the subsequent period when the work was continued to be executed and the payments towards bills were made for the works executed and the documents were falsified for the said purpose. It is therefore necessary that a proper investigation is held to bring out the truth. It is also evident that the investigation to be held by the investigating agency will be mostly confined to examination of the records, and therefore, personal liberty of the petitioners is not going to be affected. It is in the larger interest of public as well as the petitioners themselves, that the allegations are investigated and the facts are properly looked into in view of the fact that the crores of rupees are alleged to have been swindled in the guise of execution of work.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2158 - A K Goel - Full Document

Girish Kumar Suneja vs Cbi on 13 July, 2017

"21. The principles laid down in Madhu Limaye still hold the field and have not been in any manner diluted by the decision of four Judges in V.C. Shukla versus State or by recent three Judge Bench decision in Girish Kumar Suneja versus Central Bureau of Investigation. Though in V.C. Shukla, order framing charge was held to be interlocutory order, judgment in Madhu Limaye taking a contrary view was distinguished in the context of the statute considered therein. The view in S. Kuppuswami Rao, was held to have been endorsed in Mohanlal Maganlal Thacker though factually in Madhu Limaye, the said view was explained differently, as already noted. Thus, in spite of the fact that V.C. Shukla is a judgment by Bench of four Judges, it cannot be held that the principle of Madhu Limaye does not hold the field.
Supreme Court of India Cites 73 - Cited by 736 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next