Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Vinoj Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
Since both these revision petitions emanate out of a common order dated 11.01.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmour at Nahan, (Learned Trial Court) hence, the same are taken up together for consideration and disposal by way of a common judgment.
2. The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 11.01.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmour at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, vide which an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- along with interest was ordered to be paid to Ashutosh Gupta (Petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 108 of 2012) (applicant before the learned Trial Court) subject to furnishing indemnity and surety bonds with an undertaking to pay the amount to the person held entitled to it by the Civil Court, High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court and the applications filed by Vinoj Kumar Sharma and Vijay Laxmi (petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 18 of 2012) (applicants before learned Trial Court) were dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present revision petitions are that an F.I.R. No. 2
The court upheld that funds transferred to evade law cannot be recovered, emphasizing the principle of in pari delicto where both parties are equally at fault.
Agreements involving government land, known to be illegal, are void ab initio, preventing claims for restitution by parties equally responsible for the illegality.
A suit for specific performance based on an invalid agreement under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 is not maintainable.
The impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of the provisions of PMLA, 2002 and PMLA Rule, 2016, and was set aside.
A licensed moneylender cannot recover funds for loans made under agreements voided by statutory violations, emphasizing public policy against illegal transactions.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
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
