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

2006 Supreme(P&H) 1364

M.M.AGGARWAL
Surinder Singh Aneja – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Judgment

M.M.Aggarwal, J.

1. Against order dated 25.1.2002 of Special Judge, Sangrur, above-said three petitions had been filed by persons against whom charges were directed to be framed by the Special Judge Sangrur for offence under Sections 409/120-B IPC and 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Criminal Revision bearing No. 2372 of 2002 was filed by Surinder Singh Aneja who was Manager Construction and other Criminal Revision bearing No. 1856 of 2002 by Ranjit Singh who was S.O. of the Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited and third petition bearing No. 1299 of 2002 was filed by Parkash Chand Goyal who was a Government Contractor.

3. The facts of the case are that work for construction of Tourist Complex at Nidampur was allotted to Parkash Chand Goyal, Government Contractor on 27.11.1989. Work was to be completed within nine months but was completed actually in 1991. A certificate in this respect was issued by the Executive Engineer, Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh on 9.4.1991 but since the payments of the work were not being made and there was arbitration clause, the contractor sought for the arbitration. Shri V.







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