NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court “Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank

Non-Disclosure of Previous Petitions Not Deliberate Concealment, Rules Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Sharma, dismissed applications filed by Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. And M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd. Against Yashovardhan Birla. The judgment is crucial for understanding the parameters of material concealment and the prerequisites for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC.

Justice Sharma observed, “Non-mentioning of details of the earlier petitions and their withdrawal, as referred hereinbefore does not amount to deliberate concealment on behalf of the petitioners.” This statement was pivotal in the court’s decision to dismiss the applications alleging fraud by Yashovardhan Birla.

The  case revolved around allegations by the applicants that Birla had concealed material facts and misrepresented information in his petitions filed for quashing complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The crux was the non-disclosure of Birla’s earlier petitions, which were similar in nature and had been withdrawn.

This ruling underscores the importance of distinguishing between inadvertent non-disclosure and deliberate concealment in legal proceedings. The court meticulously analyzed the legal principles, relying on several Supreme Court judgments, to conclude that inadvertent errors do not constitute material suppression affecting case merits.

For legal practitioners, this judgment highlights the necessity of establishing deliberate and conscious false statements for initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC. It serves as a reminder of the high threshold required to prove allegations of material concealment in court.

The judgment provides valuable insights into the nuances of material concealment in legal proceedings, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. The decision is a testament to the court’s commitment to ensuring justice by differentiating between unintentional errors and intentional fraud.

Date : 23rd November 2023

YASHOVARDHAN BIRLA VS KAMDHENU ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR

Latest Legal News