Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
Kotak Mahindra Bank vs R.Subramanian on 21 February, 2013 cites

National Bank Of Oman vs Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr on 3 December, 2012

In the case on hand also, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Therefore, this Court in obedience to the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the above SLP, is of the view to quash the proceedings of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 and 200 of 2012 2012 and are quashed accordingly and the matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai with a direction to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C., coupled with the finding given by the Company Court in C.P.Nos. 239 and 240 of 2008 dated 25.10.2010 in this regard and to decide locus standi of the complainant to file such a private complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 621 and 629 of the Companies Act 1956. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on going through the allegations in the complaint, things fit to take the complaint on file, issue summons to the accused under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter hear the objections of both sides in writing and proceed with the matter. If he finds that no offence is made out against the quash petitioners, it is for him to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 254 - Full Document

Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983

17. At this juncture the learned senior counsel appearing for the quash petitioners relied on a judgment reported in Viswa Mitter Vs. O.P.Poddar and Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 5) in which the learned Magistrate after a preliminary enquiry, directed to issue process to the accused. The accused moved revision petition before the High Court with a request to quash the proceedings. The High Court accepted the revision petition on the narrow ground that the order issuing the process is not a speaking order and directed the learned Magistrate to consider the question of issuing process afresh. When the matter came back to the learned Magistrate, he after hearing the parties held that no case was made out for issuing the process and proceeded to dismiss the complaint. The complainant again moved the High Court by way of Revision Petition, which was dismissed in limine. Thereafter, the complainant moved the Supreme Court by way of Appeal. Operative portion of the judgment runs as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 98 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next