VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fraudulent activities of sarvodaya highways ltd. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. legal implications of the one-time settlement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. economic crimes affect broader society. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court’s reasoning for reinstating charges. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. reinstatement of charges and trial proceedings. (Para 34 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeal at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation1[Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-CBI”.] takes exception to the judgment and final order dated 18th July, 2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 31272 of 2018 (O&M)2[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.]. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,3[Hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”.] [ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS )] filed by respondent No. 1-M/s. Sarvodaya Highways Ltd.4[Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent No.1-Company or defaulter company”.] and its Directors i.e., respondent No. 2-Gurinder Kumar Garg, respondent No.3-Aruna Garg, respond
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh
State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi & Ors.
Anil Bhavarlal Jain v. State of Maharashtra
Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.