MUKTA GUPTA
Uday Kotak – Appellant
Versus
G. D. Foods Mfg (I) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
1. The petitioners seek quashing of the criminal complaint case No.161/1/2010 of 2009 titled as M/s. G.D. Foods Manufacturing (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors., inter alia, on the grounds that a perusal of the complaint would show that only a civil dispute was made out. The allegations in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The learned Trial Court committed grave error in permitting the complainant to place on record selectively only one page of the Master Facility Agreement (MFA). The complete MFA would have given the contours of the entire transaction between the parties. The Trial Court also failed to appreciate the mandate of Section 202 Cr. P.C. and without conducting an enquiry issued summons despite the fact that the petitioners in Crl.M.C.3427/2011, Crl.M.C.3538/2011 and Crl.M.C.3540/2011 are residents beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
2. Respondent/ complainant filed a complaint case against the petitioners in the four petitions alleging that in the month of September-October 2007, the complainant company was approached by Shri Mayur Mehta, Senior Manager ECG and Shri Ajay
Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. Vs. Amit Sibal & Anr.
Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI
Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani
M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka
M/s. Thermax Ltd & Ors. Vs. K.M. Johny & Ors.
Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat
Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Judicial Magistrate
Sham Sunder Vs. State of Haryana
Sharon Michael v. State of T.N
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.