Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
K. Radhakrishnan vs Thirumani Asphalts And Felts (P) Ltd., ... on 1 December, 2001 cites

Atul Mathur, Divisional Sales Manager ... vs Atul Kalra And Anr on 8 August, 1989

"Coming to the facts of the instant case, it should be pointed out that the complaint has been preferred against the petitioner as early as 1993. The trial court has disposed of the matter on 23.5.95 and the revisional court has also disposed of the matter on 17.3.98. It is curious that the petitioner had filed the civil suit only during 1998. Of course, the petitioner had filed a company petition in C.P.No.1/96 before this court, which was later dismissed. Even C.P.No.1/96 had not been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate disposed of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. What has been stated by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in ATUL MATHUR v. ATUL KALRA AND ANOTHER (1989(4) Supreme Court Cases p.514) squarely applies to the facts of the instant case, because the petitioner had filed a suit in civil court, under the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the civil court was in seisin of the matter at the time when the learned Judicial Magistrate passed order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 207 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Rajan Kumar Machananda vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 1987

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the trial Court, while passing an order of conviction after trial in the main complaints in the year 1995, considered the materials available on record and correctly passed an order of conviction and when the said order was confirmed by the Sessions Court as well as this Court, the same cannot be set aside merely on the reason that some interim orders were passed by the Civil Court which are in interlocutory nature. He would also submit that the petitioner has successfully drag on the matter from 23.8.199 5, the date of conviction till today without complying with the orders passed by the Sessions Court and this Court. He would further submit that the orders passed earlier by the trial Court cannot be reviewed, in view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in RAJAN KUMAR MACHANANDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1990 S.C.C.(CrI.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 59 - R B Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next