SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

H.L.ANAND
Vijay Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd. – Respondent


Basudev Prasad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Latit Bhardwaj and Navin Sinha, Advocates -For the Applicant.
Ram Panjwani with Raj Panjwani, Advocates-For the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

H. L. Anand, J.- By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal sport Officer concerned informing the said officer that the presence of the petitioner was required in the Court in connection with the case.

2. According to the complaint, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-I to the petition Jumbo Electronics Co. Ltd., the respondent, carries on business in London in Video Cassettes and other electronics goods, and Pranab Kumar Banerjee, through whom the complaint is filed, as the company's representative at New Delhi, who functions under a senior officer of the company, Vinod Bajaj, from A-464, Defence Colony, in New Delhi. The Company has a telephone No. 611404 at the said premises. It is alleged that various communications between the company and the petitioner took place "from A-464, Defence Colony,- New Delhi." It is alleged that in the last week of August, 1982, petitioner-accused got in touch with Vinod Bajaj on telephone from London at the above number and told him that he was "Managing Director of Cammtex Ltd." and wanted to purchase from the respondent a large quantity of blank video cassettes worth £ 100,000 against two post dated cheques of £ 50,0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top