Back
T.S.THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R.BANUMATHI
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 17th February, 2006 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No.1821 of 2005.
2. The High Court declined to interfere with the Order dated 16th August, 2005, of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand on a complaint filed by the appellant against fourteen accused for alleged commission of offences under Sections 409, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code directing the Police Sub-Inspector, Sanand, to give a report to the Court within thirty days under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) instead of directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, as sought by the appellant.
3. The case of the appellant-complainant in complaint filed by it before the Magistrate is that it is running business of food products and had permitted M/s. New Ramdev Masala Factory, wherein accused No.1 Mr. Jasvantbhai Somabhai Patel was one of the partners, to use the trademark “Ramdev” for seven years under agreement dated 4th June, 1990. However, M/s. New Ramdev
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The descriptions provided do not include any language suggesting negative treatment or invalidation by higher courts or subsequent rulings. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed / Consistent Treatment]
Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371: The case discusses the power of a Magistrate to recall an issued process, which appears to be an authoritative statement of law. No indication of subsequent treatment suggests this remains good law.
Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau VS State of Gujarat - 2010 2 Supreme 626: Clarifies procedural powers under Sections 156(3) and 202. The language suggests a straightforward exposition of legal rights and procedures, likely followed in subsequent cases.
Pepsi Foods VS Special Judicial Magistrate - 1997 9 Supreme 279: Explains the Magistrate's power to discharge an accused and the availability of High Court remedies. No evidence of negative treatment provided.
HARSH KHURANA VS UNION OF INDIA - 2005 0 Supreme(Del) 660: Establishes the legal point about the validity of challenging a Quality Control Order, indicating a settled legal position.
Indian Oil Corporation VS NEPC India LTD. - 2006 6 Supreme 66: Sets out criteria for quashing criminal complaints, a standard legal principle that is generally followed.
MADHAO VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2013 4 Supreme 477: States the settled position that a magistrate can order investigation under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance, which is consistent with procedural law.
Chandru Deo Singh VS Prokash Chandra Bose Alias Chabi Bose - 1963 0 Supreme(SC) 11: Notes that an accused has no locus standi to contest a case before process issues, a well-established principle.
MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA VS SHAILESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL - 2012 7 Supreme 257: Mentions the right of an accused under Section 401 Cr.P.C., a fundamental right likely upheld in subsequent jurisprudence.
Mary Angel VS State Of T. N. - 1999 5 Supreme 370: Discusses the application of the rule of prohibition by necessary implication, indicating a procedural doctrine that is generally accepted.
Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - 2013 8 Supreme 1: States the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Section 154 when a cognizable offence is disclosed, a well-established legal requirement.
Anil Kumar VS M. K. Aiyappa - 2013 8 Supreme 168: Clarifies that a magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3), consistent with procedural limits.
[Uncertain / Ambiguous Treatment]
None of the cases show explicit treatment that is ambiguous or uncertain based on the descriptions. They appear to be stating settled principles or procedural rules.
None. All cases seem to be stating established legal principles or procedural rules without indication of being overruled or negatively treated.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
