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

2003 Supreme(Guj) 619

D.P.BUCH
DCM HYUNDAI LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: NANAVATI AND NANAVATI, V.M.PANCHOLI

D. P. BUCH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (for short, the Code) for quashing a complaint being criminal case No. 360 of 2000 filed by respondent no. 2, herein, against the petitioners for an offence punishable under section 420 read with section 114 of IPC. The said complaint has been placed at page no. 27 at Annexure b to the petition. The second respondent has been shown as the complainant and the petitioners herein have been shown as accused persons in the said complaint. There it has been alleged that the complainant being the second respondent herein is a Body Corporate carrying on business as manufacturer of various Hot Rolled Coils/sheets/plates etc. at its workplace at Hazira, in District Surat of Gujarat State. That it has its registered office at the same place. The second respondent has also alleged in the complaint that the first petitioner is a limited company and other petitioners are responsible officers and Directors of the said company. In order to appreciate the said contentions, both factual and legal, it would be appropriate to reproduce paras 3 to 8 hereinbelow:" (3 ). The accused no. 1 is a limited company c




















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