Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
M/S Indian Oil Corporation vs M/S Nepc India Ltd., & Ors on 20 July, 2006
In M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.,
(2006) 6 SCC 736, this court observed that civil liability cannot be
converted into criminal liability and held as under:-
G. Sagar Suri And Anr vs State Of Up. And Ors on 28 January, 2000
In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2
SCC 636 this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8)
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has
been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a
short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a
criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it
is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of
which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.”
Trisuns Chemical Industry vs Rajesh Agarwal And Others C on 17 September, 1999
In
support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Trisuns
Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 686; Rajesh Bajaj
vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259; P. Swaroopa Rani vs.
M.Hari Narayana Alias Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Iridium India Telecom
Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 74. Learned counsel for
the respondent further submitted that when the Magistrate has taken
cognizance of an offence and the power of the High Court to interfere is
only to a limited extent, the High Court cannot substitute its view for the
summoning order passed by the Magistrate.
Rajesh Bajaj vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 1999
In
support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Trisuns
Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 686; Rajesh Bajaj
vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259; P. Swaroopa Rani vs.
M.Hari Narayana Alias Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Iridium India Telecom
Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 74. Learned counsel for
the respondent further submitted that when the Magistrate has taken
cognizance of an offence and the power of the High Court to interfere is
only to a limited extent, the High Court cannot substitute its view for the
summoning order passed by the Magistrate.
P. Swaroopa Rani vs M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu on 4 March, 2008
In
support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Trisuns
Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 686; Rajesh Bajaj
vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 259; P. Swaroopa Rani vs.
M.Hari Narayana Alias Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Iridium India Telecom
Ltd. vs. Motorola Incorporated & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 74. Learned counsel for
the respondent further submitted that when the Magistrate has taken
cognizance of an offence and the power of the High Court to interfere is
only to a limited extent, the High Court cannot substitute its view for the
summoning order passed by the Magistrate.