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

2006 Supreme(MP) 687

A.K.GOHIL
ANAND MAHINDRA – Appellant
Versus
SAUDAN SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.BARUA, ANIL MISHRA, Arun Barua, M.S.RAVAT, MUKUND BHARDVAJ, R.K.SHARMA, V.K.Saxena

( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid M. Cr. Cs.

( 2 ) PETITIONER Anand Mahindra, Managing Director of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and M/s. Bhopal Motors Ltd. , Bhopal have filed both the aforesaid petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners as well as the order dated 6/3/1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 586/98 and also for quashing the order dated 18/5/2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in civil Revision No. 45/2001.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Saudan Singh has filed a private complaint against both the petitioners that he purchased a commander jeep from bhopal Motors, Bhopal on 18/9/1997. Mahindra and Mahindra Company is the manufacturer of the Commander Jeep and bhopal Motors, Bhopal is the dealer of the petitioner Company and there is no dispute about the aforesaid facts. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that the complainant along with his two friends Sahid parwej and Ku. Sanju Raghuvanshi had applied for loan of Rs. one lac each under unemployment scheme and after purchase of the aforesaid vehicle they were intending to run it and earn









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