that no
offence was proved. The first Respondent also filed a Protest Application
on 27.05.2014 in case Crime No.105/2013 which was accepted ... final Report on 10.01.2015 stating that
no offence was proved. Another Protest Application was filed and once
more re-investigation was done on 17.11.2016, subsequent
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah And Anr on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok
Bhavik Bhimjyani vs Uday Vinodchandra Shah on 30 May, 2025
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok
assert that a Section 7 application is not maintainable when
the MoU entered between parties contains reciprocal rights and obligation in
which the parties ... enjoy the locus to file the Section 7 application.
Furthermore, when the Respondent protested against the Appellant for having
drawn more money than funds infused
