Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 23 January, 2009
vi) Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Navinchandra N.
Majithia v. State of Maharashtra1, Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar v. State
of Maharashtra2, Raju More v. Ram Chand Khandelwal3 and Rajendran
Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of IT4.
Raj Dewangan @ Raju And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh 22 Cra/175/2009 ... on 5 March, 2020
vi) Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Navinchandra N.
Majithia v. State of Maharashtra1, Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar v. State
of Maharashtra2, Raju More v. Ram Chand Khandelwal3 and Rajendran
Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Addl. Commissioner of IT4.
Rajendran Chingaravelu vs Mr. R.K. Mishra, Addl.Commissioner Of I ... on 24 November, 2009
ix) In the present case, learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on the
principle laid down in Navinchandra (supra) and Rajendran Chingaravelu
(supra). Both these decisions are distinguishable.
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
iv) The Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal
Kumar Basu5 held that the High Court should exercise caution and should not
transgress into the jurisdiction of other High Courts merely by relying on an
insignificant event connected with the cause of action.
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
v) Explaining what constitutes cause of action, the Supreme Court in Union
of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.6 held that each and every fact pleaded does not,
ipso facto, leads to a conclusion that such facts form part of cause of action arising
5
(1994) 4 SCC 711.
Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007
vii) In view of the principle laid down in the above decisions, coming to the
facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, the offences alleged arise out of an
agreement dated 19.12.2018 entered into at New Delhi. The allegations against the
petitioner and other accused are that they have not paid the amount agreed in terms
of the said agreement dated 19.12.2018 and, thus, they have defrauded respondent
No.2 Company by violating the terms of the said agreement. Mere registration of
the Companies at Hyderabad, existence of its registered offices at Hyderabad,
filing of insolvency proceedings in NCLT, Hyderabad, will not form part of cause
of action with regard to allegations leveled against the petitioner herein at
Hyderabad. Filing of insolvency proceedings in Hyderabad do not have any
material bearing on the alleged offences as they arise out of the Settlement
Agreement dated 19.12.2018 entered into at New Delhi. Further, the insolvency
proceedings were initiated in NCLT Hyderabad because of specific territorial
jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016.
Section 60 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000
ix) In the present case, learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on the
principle laid down in Navinchandra (supra) and Rajendran Chingaravelu
(supra). Both these decisions are distinguishable.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
1