Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.20 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam on 15 February, 2019
In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Ors. Vs. Sudha Seetharam &
Ors. Crl. App. No.238 of 2019 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has held that :
Arun Bhandari vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 10 January, 2013
In Arun Bhandari vs State of UP, 2013 (2) SCC 801, it
was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that :-
State Of Kerala vs A. Pareed Pillai And Anr. on 28 April, 1972
In
State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and Another [8], a
two-Judge Bench ruled that to hold a person guilty
of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his
intention was dishonest at the time of making the
promise and such a dishonest intention cannot be
inferred from a mere fact that he could not
subsequently fulfil the promise.
G.V. Rao vs L.H.V. Prasad & Ors on 6 March, 2000
7.4 In the case of V.Y Jose (supra), it is observed
and held by this Court that one of the ingredients of
cheating is the existence of fraudulent or dishonest
intention of making initial promise or existence
thereof, from the very beginning of formation of
contract. It is further observed and held that it is
one thing to say that a case has been made out for
trial and as such criminal proceedings should not be
quashed, but it is another thing to say that a person
should undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that
no case has been made out at all".