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

2000 Supreme(All) 38

M.A.KHAN
SHEO KUMAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.R.Siddiqui,

M. A. KHAN, J.

Heard parties coun sel and I have gone through the record.

2. The petitioner higher on the hire purchase agreement was supposed to pay the amount in instalments. There is an agreement (Annexure-1) on record be tween the parties and it mentions every clause. Therefore if there had been any breach of contract in the agreement, the remedy by way of its enforcement lies in the competent Civil Court on Civil side and the proceedings under Sections 406, 420,418 and 422ipc in Crl. Case No. 3216 of 1990 are mala fide and gross-abuse in process of law and are hereby quashed.

3. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of finally.


.

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