Companies Act — Judgments

Recent judgments citing this act

1. M/S Nandan Biomatrix Limited vs Herbz India & Ors on 11 December, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana11 Dec 2023

   Case Name: M/S Nandan Biomatrix Limited vs Herbz India & Ors on 11 December, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 11 December, 2023 Bench: Smt Justice M.G.Priyadarsini Subject: Arbitration Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal can be dismissed as infructuous upon a submission by the appellant's counsel. 2. Dismissal of an appeal as infructuous results in no order as to costs. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications are closed following the dismissal of the main appeal. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal was filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order dated 31/03/2011. Held: A. On Appeal’s Infructuousness: Majority View: The Court accepted the submission of the appellant’s counsel that the matter had become infructuous. Dissenting View: None. B. On Costs: Majority View: No order as to costs was passed. Dissenting View: None. C. On Pending Applications: Majority View: All pending miscellaneous applications were directed to be closed. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneou

2. Government of Andhra Pradesh vs M/s Indian Immunologicals Ltd. on 22 November, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana22 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Government of Andhra Pradesh vs M/s Indian Immunologicals Ltd. on 22 November, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 22 November, 2023 Bench: Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Anil Kumar Jukanti, J. Subject: Writ Appeal – Disposal with Liberty to Pursue Pending Writ Petition Key Legal Propositions 1. An intra-court appeal concerning an interim order can be disposed of with liberty to pursue the original writ petition. 2. The Court may allow an appeal to be disposed of when the appellant seeks to pursue the original writ petition. 3. No order as to costs will be passed when a writ appeal is disposed of with liberty to pursue the original writ petition. Judgment Summary Background: The present Writ Appeal arises from an interim order dated 30.08.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2072 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.25173 of 2011. The appellants sought to challenge the validity of the interim order. Held: A. On Disposal of Writ Appeal: Majority View: The Court disposed of the Writ Appeal with liberty to the appellants to pursue the pending writ petition before the learned Single Judge, in light of the submission made by the learned

3. M/s Sanghi Polyesters Ltd. vs M/s Pollil Marketing & Anr. on 05 January, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana5 Jan 2023

   Case Name: M/s Sanghi Polyesters Ltd. vs M/s Pollil Marketing & Anr. on 05 January, 2023 Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 05 January, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice M. Laxman Subject: Arbitration – Appeal against Award – Dismissal due to Appellant’s Liquidation Key Legal Propositions 1. An appeal can be dismissed when the appellant company has gone into liquidation and no steps have been taken to bring the official liquidator on record. 2. Lack of continued prosecution of appeal by the liquidator, despite communication, is grounds for dismissal. 3. Dismissal of the appeal does not preclude closure of any pending miscellaneous petitions. Judgment Summary Background: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges an award dated 25.03.2005 in O.P.No.2283 of 2003, passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad. The appellant company is in liquidation, and an official liquidator has been appointed. Held: A. On Appeal Maintainability: Majority View: The Court found no reason to continue the appeal as the appellant company was in liquidation and no steps were taken to bring the official liquidator on record

4. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 07 August, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh7 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 07 August, 2023 Court: High Court Date of Judgment: 07 August, 2023 Bench: Mr. Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ & Mr. A.V. Sesha Sai, J Subject: Arbitration, MSMED Act, Limitation Act, Privity of Contract Key Legal Propositions 1. The MSMED Act, 2006 does not automatically override the principles of limitation as enshrined in the Limitation Act. 2. Disputes regarding privity of contract and limitation are best adjudicated by the Tribunal under the MSMED Act, 2006, after examining relevant evidence. 3. High Courts should refrain from interfering with orders allowing parties to proceed with arbitration/conciliation, particularly when factual controversies exist. Judgment Summary Background: The appellant, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., challenged an order of the learned single Judge allowing the respondent No.4 to proceed with arbitration before the Andhra Pradesh State Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council. The appellant argued lack of privity of contract, the claim being time-barred, and the MSMED Act, 2006 being a prospective legislation. The respondent No.4 contended the existence of a

5. Lakshmi Electrical vs The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited on 24 March, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh24 Mar 2023

   Case Name: Lakshmi Electrical vs The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited on 24 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 24 March, 2023 Bench: D.V.S.S. Somayajulu and V. Srinivas, JJ. Subject: Contract Law, Administrative Law, Outsourcing, Writ Appeal Key Legal Propositions 1. A clear and unambiguous administrative memo restricting outsourcing staff hiring cannot be arbitrarily used to prevent a contractor from engaging personnel under a valid contract. 2. A writ petition becomes infructuous when the contract period expires and a new contractor is appointed for the same operations. 3. The continuation of employees despite a change in contractors is irrelevant when the writ petition is filed by the contractor regarding the stoppage of engagement of employees. Judgment Summary Background: This writ appeal arises from a single judge’s order allowing a writ petition filed by a contractor (Lakshmi Electrical) challenging the respondents’ reliance on a memo dated 21.10.2019, which instructed against hiring outsourcing staff due to the selection of Shift Operators/Computer Operators as Junior Line Man. The appellant (Lak

6. M/s. Vasavi Power Services Private Limited vs The Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 21 March, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh21 Mar 2023

   Case Name: M/s. Vasavi Power Services Private Limited vs The Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 21 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 21 March, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari Subject: Writ Petition challenging Demand Notice and Prohibitory Order related to recovery of dues under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Key Legal Propositions 1. A party cannot approach the court with unclean hands by making false averments in affidavits. 2. Successor companies are liable for the debts and liabilities of the predecessor firm when assets and liabilities are transferred via a valid agreement. 3. Courts have the power to impose costs on parties who abuse the process of the court or file false affidavits. Judgment Summary Background: The writ petition challenged a Demand Notice and Prohibitory Order issued for recovery of Rs.9,66,081/- under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The recovery certificate was initially issued against M/s. Vasavi Engineering Works (a dissolved partnership firm). The petitioner, M/s. Vasavi Power Services Private Limited, argued that it was an ind

7. Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II on 21 June, 2023

   High Court of Chhattisgarh21 Jun 2023

   Case Name: Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II on 21 June, 2023 Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Date of Judgment: 21 June, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Subject: Priority of Payment – Employees Provident Fund Dues vs. Secured Creditors under SARFAESI Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 11 of the EPF Act, 1952, establishes a first charge on the employer’s assets for outstanding PF dues, taking precedence over other debts. 2. Despite the insertion of Section 26E in the SARFAESI Act, 2002, granting priority to secured creditors, the EPF Act’s provisions regarding priority of payment remain unaffected due to the legislative intent to protect employee welfare. 3. The object and purpose of the EPF Act, aimed at providing social security to employees, outweigh the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in cases of conflicting claims. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioners, an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC), challenged an attachment order issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for recovery of dues from M/s. Hitech Equipment and Spares Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners argued that as secu

8. Yashovardhan Birla vs. Kamdhenu Enterprises Limited and Anr. on 05 November, 2024

   High Court of Delhi5 Nov 2024

   Case Name: Yashovardhan Birla vs. Kamdhenu Enterprises Limited and Anr. on 05 November, 2024 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 05.11.2024 Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri Subject: Criminal Law, Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, Section 141, Vicarious Liability of Directors, Quashing of Criminal Complaints Key Legal Propositions 1. For a Director to be held liable under Section 138 NI Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the company’s business at the time of the offence. Mere designation as a Director is insufficient. 2. The role of a Director in a company is a question of fact, and liability isn’t automatic simply by holding a directorial position. The focus should be on active involvement in the company’s affairs. 3. A Chairman of a company, particularly in large conglomerates, is not necessarily involved in the day-to-day affairs and cannot be assumed to be in charge of the business without specific evidence. Judgment Summary Background: The petitions sought quashing of criminal complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against Yashovardhan Birla, a non-executiv

9. M/s Rajendra Properties (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs Ashok Bansal & Ors. on 08 August, 2023

   High Court of Delhi8 Aug 2023

   Case Name: M/s Rajendra Properties (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs Ashok Bansal & Ors. on 08 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 08 August, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna Subject: Ejectment, Lease, Attornment, Dissolved Company, Mesne Profits, Transfer of Property Key Legal Propositions 1. A landlord’s right to recover possession and mesne profits can be transferred, and a transferee steps into the shoes of the original landlord, even without formal attornment by the tenant. 2. A company struck off from the Register of Companies, while barred from conducting business, retains the right to pursue recovery of dues and discharge liabilities, but cannot maintain legal proceedings itself. 3. A tenant cannot dispute the title of a landlord or their transferee, especially after a long period of acquiescence and acceptance of rent. Judgment Summary Background: The appeal challenges a decree of ejectment and mesne profits passed by the Single Judge, dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The dispute concerns a property leased by M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) to M/s Rajendra Properties (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., w

10. Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs M/s Shonkh Technologies Limited on 19 January, 2023

    High Court of Delhi19 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs M/s Shonkh Technologies Limited on 19 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 19 January, 2023 Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav Subject: Criminal Law, Company Law, Limitation, Condonation of Delay, Prosecution Sanction Key Legal Propositions 1. The period spent by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) awaiting direction from the Central Government to file a complaint cannot be excluded when calculating the limitation period, as no prior sanction was legally required. 2. Section 242 of the Companies Act does not mandate prior sanction for prosecution; it merely outlines the process for the Central Government to authorize prosecution after reviewing investigation reports. 3. The SFIO requires authorization from the Central Government to file a complaint under Section 621 of the Companies Act, but this authorization does not equate to the statutory "consent" or "sanction" required for extending the limitation period under Section 470(3) of the CrPC. Judgment Summary Background: These petitions challenge the dismissal of applications seeking condonation of delay in filing a complaint by the SFI

11. VIKAS VERMA vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS on 28 March, 2023

    High Court of Delhi28 Mar 2023

    Case Name: VIKAS VERMA vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS on 28 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 28th March, 2023 Bench: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD Subject: Criminal Writ Petition; Investigation into alleged financial fraud and diversion of funds by a real estate group. Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts should generally refrain from monitoring investigations except in rare or exceptional circumstances where it is absolutely necessary. 2. The investigative powers of agencies are unfettered as long as they operate within the bounds of the law, and courts should not interfere with the investigation process unless there is mala fide intent or abuse of power. 3. Aggrieved parties have alternative remedies available, such as approaching the NCLT and RERA authorities, and courts should consider these avenues before intervening in ongoing investigations. Judgment Summary Background: The petition is a Writ Petition filed seeking directions to the Economic Offences Wing (EoW), Enforcement Directorate (ED), and Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate alleged fraudulent land transactions and diversion of fu

12. Neetu Singh vs Paramount Coaching Centre Pvt Ltd on 22 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi22 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Neetu Singh vs Paramount Coaching Centre Pvt Ltd on 22 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 22.08.2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Revision Petition – Delaying Trial – Imposition of Costs Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts possess inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. 2. Imposition of costs is a legitimate tool to discourage frivolous litigation, delay tactics, and misuse of judicial proceedings. 3. When imposing costs, courts should consider practical realities, the duration of litigation, and the expenses incurred by the opposing party. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner challenged an order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the ASJ, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CR No. 520/2022. The Respondent Company had filed a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging wrongful possession of company properties by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, a director and shareholder, repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination, leading the Trial Court to close her opportunity to present Defence Eviden

13. Siddharth Sahib Singh vs Apex Council of DDCA on 10 July, 2023

    High Court of Delhi10 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Siddharth Sahib Singh vs Apex Council of DDCA on 10 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 10 July, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad Subject: Company Law, Arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Writ Jurisdiction, Maintainability of Petition Key Legal Propositions 1. A High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and should not be exercised when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. 2. The NCLT has the power to regulate the conduct of affairs of a company under the Companies Act, 2013, and is the appropriate forum for resolving disputes concerning the internal management of a company incorporated under Section 8 of the Act. 3. While Article 226 is a plenary power, it is subject to self-imposed limitations, and the High Court should generally refrain from interfering with statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner, Secretary of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), challenged a notice convening an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to ratify the appointment of Justice M M Kumar as the Ombudsman cum Et

14. Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India & Anr. on 03 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi3 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh vs Union of India & Anr. on 03 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 03 August, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula Subject: Public Interest Litigation, Corporatization of Ordnance Factory Board, Service Conditions of Employees, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law. Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts exercise judicial restraint in matters of economic and fiscal policy, intervening only if a policy is clearly illegal, unconstitutional, or shockingly arbitrary. 2. The executive branch has the prerogative to formulate policy, and courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the executive, particularly in areas requiring specialized expertise. 3. A policy decision taken in the national interest or public interest is generally not subject to judicial interference, unless it violates constitutional provisions or statutory law. Judgment Summary Background: The writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Government of India’s decision to convert the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven Major Corporations through a gazette notification dat

15. K.S. Mehta vs M/S Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. on 28 November, 2023

    High Court of Delhi28 Nov 2023

    Case Name: K.S. Mehta vs M/S Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. on 28 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: November 28, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Corporate Liability, Director’s Responsibility Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 extends criminal liability to individuals in charge of and responsible for a company’s business conduct when an offence under Section 138 occurs. 2. Establishing vicarious liability under Section 141 requires specific averments in the complaint demonstrating the accused’s role in the company’s affairs and responsibility for the offence. 3. A mere designation as a director, particularly a non-executive director, is insufficient to establish liability; the complainant must demonstrate active involvement in the company’s business conduct at the time of the offence. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the summoning order against the petitioner (accused no. 5) in a complaint under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Th

16. South Delhi Motorcycles & Anr. vs IDFC First Bank Ltd. on 12 October, 2023

    High Court of Delhi12 Oct 2023

    Case Name: South Delhi Motorcycles & Anr. vs IDFC First Bank Ltd. on 12 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 12.10.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Key Legal Propositions 1. For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), a cheque must be drawn for a legally enforceable debt, presented within six months, a demand notice must be issued, and payment must not be made within fifteen days of the notice. 2. A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) should not be used to prematurely extinguish a case at the pre-trial stage, especially when factual disputes exist and require evidence to be led. 3. Amalgamation of a company results in the transfer of its properties, rights, liabilities, and duties to the transferee company, allowing the transferee to pursue existing contractual claims. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioners sought quashing of summoning orders and complaints filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the cheques were issued as security and misused after

17. Basant Kumar Goswami vs State of NCT of Delhi on November 28, 2023

    High Court of Delhi

    Case Name: Basant Kumar Goswami vs State of NCT of Delhi on November 28, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: November 28, 2023 Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain Subject: Criminal Law, Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138/141 NI Act, Vicarious Liability, Corporate Governance, Director’s Responsibility Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 extends criminal liability to individuals in charge of and responsible for a company’s business conduct when an offence under Section 138 occurs. 2. To attract vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the company’s business at the time of the offence. A mere statement of being in charge is insufficient. 3. The courts require strict construction of Section 141 NI Act, a penal provision, and require proof of active involvement and responsibility in the company’s affairs beyond merely holding a directorial position. Judgment Summary Background: The petition under Section 482 CrPC challenges the order dated 29.01.2019 upholding the trial court’s decision to summon the petitioner (a

18. Rajeev Srivastava And Others vs State Of NCT Of Delhi And Another on 26 April, 2023

    High Court of Delhi26 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Rajeev Srivastava And Others vs State Of NCT Of Delhi And Another on 26 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 26.04.2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Quashing of FIR, Settlement, Section 482 Cr.P.C. Key Legal Propositions 1. A High Court possesses inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice. 2. Criminal cases with a predominantly civil flavour, particularly those arising from commercial disputes, may be quashed upon settlement between parties if the prospect of conviction is remote. 3. Partial quashing of an FIR is permissible concerning accused persons who have reached a compromise with the complainant, preventing them from suffering based on the initial complaint. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition sought quashing of FIR No. 0071/2020 registered under Sections 420/409/120B, IPC, alleging offences related to dishonoured cheques. The FIR was lodged by M/s Skynet Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. against the petitioners, who were Directors of M/s Assotech Ltd. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27.11.2021 was entered into bet

19. Devinder Singh vs Axis Bank Ltd. on 18 September, 2023

    High Court of Delhi18 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Devinder Singh vs Axis Bank Ltd. on 18 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 18.09.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 482 CrPC, Maintainability of Complaint Key Legal Propositions 1. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, must be filed by the payee or holder in due course. 2. When a company is the complainant, it must be represented by an authorized employee who possesses knowledge of the transaction. 3. A Magistrate should not dismiss a complaint at the threshold based on questions of authorization; such disputes are best adjudicated during trial. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought quashing of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the complaint was not filed by Axis Bank Ltd. through a duly authorized person. The complaint was signed by Sandeep Singh, authorized by Axis Securities Ltd., a sister company of Axis Bank Ltd. The petitioner argued that the Special Power of Attorney was executed by Axis Securities Ltd., not Axis Bank Ltd., and lacked explicit mention of knowledge

20. Siddharth Duggal vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. on 12 October, 2023

    High Court of Delhi12 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Siddharth Duggal vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. on 12 October, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 12.10.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act, Section 138 NI Act, Section 141 NI Act, Section 243 CrPC, Section 251 CrPC, Section 313 CrPC, Section 482 CrPC, Sole Proprietorship, Material Alteration, Examination of Cheque. Key Legal Propositions 1. A signed blank cheque voluntarily presented to a payee, even if filled in later, does not invalidate the cheque and the drawer remains liable unless evidence rebuts the presumption of debt. 2. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply to sole proprietorship firms; only the sole proprietor is liable under Section 138 NI Act. 3. An accused person should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in their defence, and the court, as master of proceedings, determines the relevance of such evidence. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner challenged orders dismissing his applications to examine a cheque for forensic analysis and summon defence witnesses in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Search all 2,015 judgments →