https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235185 A complaint and connected Section 340 CrPC application failed because no offence was identified in relation to the proceeding or any document produced in evidence, and the material did not attract Section 195 CrPC or disclose forgery, false evidence, criminal conspiracy, or another cognisable offence; the application was rejected. Relief seeking delivery of possession of a plot was also beyond jurisdiction, because unfair trade practice proceedings under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are confined to redress for such practices and do not extend to specific performance or civil possession orders; that prayer was refused. The admitted refundable amount was nevertheless ordered to be returned with interest, leaving only limited monetary relief. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235185 A complaint and connected Section 340 CrPC application failed because no offence was identified in relation to the proceeding or any document produced in evidence, and the material did not attract Section 195 CrPC or disclose forgery, false evidence, criminal conspiracy, or another cognisable offence; the application was rejected. Relief seeking delivery of possession of a plot was also beyond jurisdiction, because unfair trade practice proceedings under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are confined to redress for such practices and do not extend to specific performance or civil possession orders; that prayer was refused. The admitted refundable amount was nevertheless ordered to be returned with interest, leaving only limited monetary relief. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235185