AMIT SHARMA
Yashovardhan Birla – Appellant
Versus
Kamdhenu Enterprises Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J. - The present applications filed on behalf of the applicant/respondent no. 1, i.e., Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. in CRL.MA 17894/2023 and CRL.MA 17817/2023 and M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd. in CRL.MA 17815/2023 (collectively referred to as 'the applicant') seek a common relief, i.e., dismissal of the captioned petitions filed by the non-applicant/petitioner, i.e., Yashovardhan Birla ('the non-applicant') on the ground of fraud and initiation of proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against him. Vide order dated 04.11.2023, this Court had reserved orders in the interim applications, recording as under:
"CRL.M.A. 17894/2023 (Directions) in CRL.M.C. 3778/2023
CRL.M.A. 17815/2023 (Directions) in CRL.M.C. 3779/2023
CRL.M.A. 17817/2023 (Directions) in CRL.M.C. 3780/2023
1. The pleadings in the captioned petitions i.e. CRL.M.C. 3778/2023, CRL.M.C. 3779/2023 and CRL.M.C. 3780/2023 are complete and hence they were listed for hearing today.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.1 in the present applications submits that the applications may be decided at the first instance before the petitions ar
A.N. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani
Ambica Plastopack Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State and Anr.
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Ors.
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others
Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal and Ors.
Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and Anr.
Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr.
Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa (1963) 14 STC 766
Dhariwall Tobacco Products Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.
K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission
Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
P. Satyanarayanan v. Land Reforms Tribunal
RS Sujatha v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of bihar and Ors.
Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Another
SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Suryachandra Rao
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-mentioning of details with regard to previous petitions and the order disposing of the said petitions was not deliberate material conc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the consequences of suppression of material facts.
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
A litigant must disclose all material facts when seeking relief from the court, and failure to do so can result in the denial of that relief. Successive applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that litigants must act fairly and not abuse the process of the court by concealing material facts or filing repetitive petitions after the dismiss....
What would be a ‘material fact’ would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
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.