Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J
Champion Agro Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to simultaneous complaints and issues of substitution. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners argue the substitution is prejudicial to legal rights. (Para 5) |
| 3. respondents defend legality of substitution based on assignment. (Para 6) |
| 4. court examines legal principles around substitution of complainant. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's final rationale on the validity of complaints by juristic entities. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
J. C. Doshi, J.
1. The captioned petitions, involving identical questions of law and fact inter se between the same parties, albeit arising out of two distinct criminal complaints, are, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on either side, heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. At the request of the learned advocates for both parties, Special Criminal Application No. 1723 of 2017 is treated as the lead matter for the purpose of adverting to and extracting the relevant factual matrix.
3. Both petitions have been instituted by the accused persons invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, assailing the legality, validity, and propriety of the order passed by the learned
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
