Judgments - Fraud
Union of India and Another Versus Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP & Anr.
Mukul Agarwal & Ors VERSUS State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Pradeep Kumar Arya Vs. State of M.P. & others
M/s Bihar Home Developers and Builders Vs. Shri Narendra Prasad Gupta
H.S. Goutham Versus Rama Murthy and Anr. Etc.
RAKESH MIDHA VERSUS M/S ORIENTAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD
Jhulan Rai Versus The State Of Bihar
Jhulan Rai Versus The State Of Bihar Full Judgment
M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka & Ors.
M/S SHRI COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VERSUS M/S FELICIA REALCON INDIA PVT LTD
Serious Fraud Investigation Office VERSUS Rahul Modi and Another Etc.
Suresh Singh Bhadoria Versus Central Bureau of Investigtion
Law laid down - In terms of Section 170(1) of CrPC, the investigating agency is mandated to produce an accused into custody for the non-bailable offence. The argument that the Court should have issued summons in respect of such offence, cannot be accepted. Inherent power of judicial review under Section 482 of CrPC presupposes that the Court is required to see whether the trial Court has abused the process of law or it is necessary to annul the proceedings for securing the Full Judgment
Manish Surekha & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - Defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. It can be considered at an appropriate stage/defence evidence. Full Judgment
Yogendra Dusaj vs. State of MP
Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P.
Law Laid Down - (i) Even an employee not borne out of regular establishment is entitled to be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before a stigmatic order can be passed terminating his services. Mere issuance of show cause notice and calling of reply would not suffice without supply of adverse material used against the employee and affording him opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his defence. Full Judgment
Krishan Mohan Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.
Law Laid Down - Framing of charge precisely mentioning the offence which in specific terms prescribes punishment for the same and not any other generic or approximate offence which may in generic terms prescribe punishment for the offence alleged. Charge framed u/S 409 IPC does not relate to breach of trust by a warehouse keeper, which offence is exclusively punishable u/s 407 IPC. Thus, charge for breach of trust by warehouse keeper framed u/S 409 IPC is not sustainable. The trial Court directed to Full Judgment