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

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc., (2020) 09 SC CK 0006

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing the revision petitions whereby the Additional Sessions Judge not only quashed the process issued by the Magistrate under sections 191,192 and 193 of the IPC but also quashed the two criminal complaints filed by the Appellants against the Respondents under Section 340 read with Section 195 in respect of offences alleged under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), which were converted to and treated as private complaints by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court opined that it seems to them that the baby and the bath-water have both been thrown out together. While it is correct to say that the order of conversion and issuing of process thereafter on a private complaint may not be correct, yet the two complaints as originally filed can still be pursued. Once the Magistrate’s order had been set aside, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have relegated the parties to the position before the original complaints had been converted into private complaints.Since this has not been done, we therefore, reinstate the two complaints in their original form so that they may be proceeded with further, following the drill of Sections 195 and 340 of the Cr.PC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON DIRECTING A FRESH/ DE NOVO INVESTIGATION EVEN AFTER INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 173(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THOUGH UNDER SECTION 173 (8) OF CR.P.C. ONLY A FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED.

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com Neetu Kumar Nagaich Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Others, (2020) 09 SC CK 0026 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court while setting aside the Closure Report filed by the Police directed a de novo investigation by a fresh team of investigators to be headed by a senior police officer of the State consisting of efficient personnel well conversant with use of modern investigation technology also. No officer who was part of the investigating team leading to the closure report shall be part of the team conducting de novo investigation. The Supreme Court was of the view that normally when an investigation has been concluded and...
Read more

SUPREME COURT FULL BENCH JUDGMENT ON A REFERENCE ARISING OUT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO DIVISION BENCH DECISIONS IN JOGINDER TULI VS. S.L. BHATIA, (1996) 10 SC CK 0017 AND OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VS. MODERN CONSTRUCTION & CO., (2013) 10 SC CK 0043 WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF LAW IF A PLAINT IS RETURNED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 AND 10A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, FOR PRESENTATION IN THE COURT IN WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED, WHETHER THE SUIT SHALL PROCEED DE NOVO OR WILL IT CONTINUE FROM THE STAGE WHERE IT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THE TIME OF RETURNING OF THE PLAINT.

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com M/S. Exl Careers And Another Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, (2020) 08 SC CK 0001 A Full Bench of the Supreme Court on a reference by a two Judge Bench opining a perceived conflict between two Division Bench decisions in Joginder Tuli vs. S.L. Bhatia,  (1996) 10 SC CK 0017  and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation   Ltd. vs. Modern Construction & Co.,  (2013) 10 SC CK 0043  with regard to question of law if a plaint is   returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, ...
Read more

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON SECTION 142(2)(a) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT

Image
        NAME MOBILE NO. E-MAIL I’D RANJEET   KUMAR 8383098478 ,  9667769795 rk@courtkutchehry.com JAI THAKUR 8130703334 ,  9355723300 jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com RAJEEV   RANJAN 9334553249 rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com ASHOK   MISHRA 9718327746 sales@courtkutchehry.com RAVI   KUMAR ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com M/S Himalaya Self Farming Group & Anr Vs. M/S Goyal Feed Suppliers, (2020) 09 SC CK 0037 A Single Bench of the Supreme Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.
Read more