Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And Anr on 7 April, 2014
11. I may also refer to and rely on the observations of the Supreme
Court as contained in Para15 of the Indus Airways Private Limited v.
Magnum Aviation Private Limited reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539:
Rallis India Ltd vs Poduru Vidya Bhusan & Ors on 13 April, 2011
12. In Rallis India Ltd. v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan [(2011) 13 SCC
88], this Court expressed its views on this point as under: (SCC p.
93, para 12)
"12. At the threshold, the High Court should not have interfered
with the cognizance of the complaints having been taken by the
trial court. The High Court could not have discharged the
respondents of the said liability at the threshold. Unless the
parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible
to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the date when
the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the
respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm."
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hmt Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr on 19 March, 2015
14 In HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida, (2015) 11 SCC 776 relied
upon on behalf of the respondent, this Court dealt with the contention
that the proceedings under Section 138 were liable to be quashed as
the cheques were given as "security" as per defence of the accused.
Negativing the contention, this Court held :
"10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of
Page 10 of 13
HC-NIC Page 10 of 13 Created On Wed Aug 16 08:40:06 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/6595/2015 ORDER
the view that the accused (Respondent 1) challenged the
proceedings of criminal complaint cases before the High Court,
taking factual defences. Whether the cheques were given as
security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not
is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the
trial court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion,
the High Court should not have expressed its view on the disputed
questions of fact in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is not
made out. The High Court has erred in law in going into the
factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the
parties. The High Court further erred in observing that Section
138(b) of the NI Act stood uncomplied with, even though
Respondent 1 (accused) had admitted that he replied to the notice
issued by the complainant.
Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 19 September, 2016
In the case of Sampelly (Supra) the Supreme Court
referred to its earlier decision in the case of Indus Airways Private Limited
v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539 and
distinguished the same in the facts of that case by observation as under:
Page 9 of 13
HC-NIC Page 9 of 13 Created On Wed Aug 16 08:40:06 IST 2017
R/SCR.A/6595/2015 ORDER
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors on 9 January, 2008
In Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd.
[(2008) 13 SCC 678], this Court has made the following
observations explaining the parameters of jurisdiction of the High
Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure: (SCC pp. 68587, paras 17 & 22)
"17. The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is now well settled. Although it is of wide
amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its
exercise. What is required is application of the wellknown legal
principles involved in the matter.
1