Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Narinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sukh Kanwal Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of fraud and conspiracy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' denial and counterclaims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's findings and issues framed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appellate court's reaffirmation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments related to evidence insufficiency. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. rejection of plaintiff's claims. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)
The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent finding of dismissal of the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-.
2. Case of the plaintiff is that respondents/defendants entered into a criminal conspiracy and received an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from plaintiff on the pretext of sending him abroad i.e. to Germany, but thereafter, neither he was sent to Germany nor the amount was returned.
3. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiff that in the month of October, 2006, Rs.25,000/- was given in cash to defendant No.3-Jasbir Kaur. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs,1,60,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was deposited in the bank account of defendant No.1 in Centurion Bank of Punjab, Court Road, Amritsar. One F.I.R. No.98 dated 16.02.2008 under Section
Criminal Proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior Courts while exercising this power should also strive to se....
The plaintiff failed to substantiate claims of property ownership and recovery of funds, with findings of the trial court affirming limitations statutes hindered claims.
Criminal prosecution for cheating requires evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception of the transaction; mere inability to repay a loan does not suffice.
(1) A party who admits receipt of certain amount of money on a particular date and pleads discharge by way of a full and final settlement at a latter date, is one on whom onus lies.(2) In a suit for ....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; cheating requires dishonest intent from outset, not mere promise breach; criminal intimidation needs intent to alarm or compel action.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is not permissible where serious fraud allegations threaten public interest; individual settlements cannot outweigh collective societal harm.
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
