Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
4 judgments · newest first · showing 1–4
The father‑son applicants were charged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act for allegedly cheating investors of about Rs 2.48 crore. They contended that they had already repaid Rs 1.69 crore to 984 investors and …
The father‑son applicants were charged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act for allegedly cheating investors of about Rs 2.48 crore. They contended that they had already repaid Rs 1.69 crore to 984 investors and …
The father‑son applicants were charged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act for allegedly cheating investors of about Rs 2.48 crore. They contended that they had already repaid Rs 1.69 crore to 984 investors and …
The father‑son applicants were charged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act for allegedly cheating investors of about Rs 2.48 crore. They contended that they had already repaid Rs 1.69 crore to 984 investors and …
