https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310770 The SC dismissed the appeal for appellant No. 1, affirming a prima facie case under Sections 192 and 199 IPC. However, it allowed the appeal for appellant No. 2, quashing the complaint due to the absence of specific allegations and lack of statutory basis for vicarious liability under these sections. The HC's decision to decline jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was upheld for appellant No. 1, while the complaint against appellant No. 2 was quashed, overturning the Magistrate's order taking cognizance against him. The setting aside of the arbitral award did not affect the criminal complaint's validity. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:40:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310770 The SC dismissed the appeal for appellant No. 1, affirming a prima facie case under Sections 192 and 199 IPC. However, it allowed the appeal for appellant No. 2, quashing the complaint due to the absence of specific allegations and lack of statutory basis for vicarious liability under these sections. The HC's decision to decline jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was upheld for appellant No. 1, while the complaint against appellant No. 2 was quashed, overturning the Magistrate's order taking cognizance against him. The setting aside of the arbitral award did not affect the criminal complaint's validity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310770