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

1956 Supreme(All) 63

V.D.BHARGAVA
HIRA LAL CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


V. D. BHARGAVA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a composite application under Section 435 read with Sections 439 and 561-A Cr. P. C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution praying that certain criminal proceedings pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly under Sections 406, 408 and 409 read with Sections 34 and 109 and 420, I. P. C. be quashed.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case as disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the application in brief are given herein. There is a joint stock concern of the name and style of Messrs. Mira Lal Debi Prasad ltd. , having its head office at 23/24 Radhey Bazar, Calcutta, of which petitioner No. 1 is the managing director and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors. The Indian Turpentine and Rosin com. , Clutter-buck Ganj Bareilly (hereinafter called the Bareilly Firm), through whom the State is represented in this case as an opposite Party, are manufacturers of rosin and turpentine. There was an agreement on the 23rd May 1949 by which Messrs. Hira Lal Debi Prasad (hereinafter called the Calcutta firm) was appointed as selling agents for a year. This agreement was renewed by another agreement of the 15th July 1950. This second agreement to a cer

















































































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