Skip to content
rawlaw unfiltered legal news
  • Home
  • News
  • Videos
  • Bookmarks
  • Profile
  • facebook.com
  • twitter.com
  • t.me
  • instagram.com
  • youtube.com

Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Payment Dispute: Emphasizes Civil Nature of Breach of Contract and Asserts “Inherent Power Under Section 482 CrPC Meant to Prevent Abuse of Process of Law”

Home » Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Payment Dispute: Emphasizes Civil Nature of Breach of Contract and Asserts "Inherent Power Under Section 482 CrPC Meant to Prevent Abuse of Process of Law"
Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Payment Dispute: Emphasizes Civil Nature of Breach of Contract and Asserts "Inherent Power Under Section 482 CrPC Meant to Prevent Abuse of Process of Law"
Posted inNews

Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Payment Dispute: Emphasizes Civil Nature of Breach of Contract and Asserts “Inherent Power Under Section 482 CrPC Meant to Prevent Abuse of Process of Law”

1. Court's Decision The High Court allowed the petition filed by the accused and quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).…
Posted by Rawlaw January 18, 2025

Recent News

  • Bombay High Court curtails Charity Commissioner’s overreach under public trust law — “Section 41A is about property and income, not moral correction,” apology direction quashed
  • Bombay High Court upholds quashing of stop-work notice under municipal law — “Authority must pass a reasoned order after reply; vague notices cannot stand,” appeal dismissed
  • Bombay High Court rejects MSME restructuring plea for ₹30 crore loan — “Eligibility under RBI revival framework hinges on loan limit, not outstanding exposure,” writ petition dismissed
  • Bombay High Court upholds arbitral award granting escalation despite restrictive clauses — “A defaulting employer cannot hide behind no-compensation terms,” commercial arbitration appeal dismissed
  • Bombay High Court refuses to appoint arbitrator for railway contract disputes exceeding 20% cap — “Party autonomy permits selective arbitrability; court cannot compel arbitration beyond agreed threshold,” Section 11 application dismissed
Copyright 2026 — Raw Law. All rights reserved.
Scroll to Top