CHANAYIL v. GULATI

Docket No. 97-9192.

169 F.3d 168 (1999)

Nandakumar CHANAYIL, Parukutty Chanayil, Pramod B. Chemburkar, Vithalbhai Dhaduk, Ranjan Dhaduk, Alida Ferrena-Mahmud, Ranga S. Geetha, Dwipen Ghosh, Harsha Gohil, Rasik Gohil, Prem Goyal, Peter Guha, Meera Guha, Satya Paul Gupta, Satwant Gupta, Neela Inamdar, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Anup Inamdar, Pawan Jain, Balachandran Kabadi, Kamala Kabadi, Lata Karna, Melpakkam D. Kasy, Rose Marie Kasy, John C. Koikara, Tessy J. Koikara, Padma Mahajan, Asit B. Maity, Maitreyi Maiti, Dipak Majmudar, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Shefali Majmudar, Suresh Matt, Anil K. Midha, Rashmi Midha, Yogeshwar Nehra, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Gita Nehra, Shamrao Patankar, Manali Patankar, Anant K. Patel, Devendra Patel, Gnanesh K. Patel, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Ami G. Patel, Indravadan M. Patel, Rajesh M. Patel, Raja K. Prasad, B. Kishan Rao, B. Jayamma Rao, Javed Raza, Narjis Raza, Wagar Sethi, Anila N. Shah, Bipin M. Shah, Jayshree B. Shah, Kamini Shah, Ashvin Shah, Kirit Shah, Dina Shah, Ramesh M. Shah, Maya R. Shah, Srinivasan Shankar, Kailash C. Sharma, Savitri Sharma, Ramesh Sharma, Ramanath Shenoy, Anil Solanky, Prasad Subbanna, Ibrahim V. Tawa, Mohmed S. Tawa, Kaspal R. Thumma, Noel Vaz, Sheela Vaz, Habibuz Zaman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Deepak GULATI, D. Gulati & Associates, Inc., Defendants, and Vision of Asia, A Partnership, Banad Vishwanath, Karl Khandalawala, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided March 2, 1999.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Krishnan S. Chittur, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Morton Newburgh, Silverstein, Langer, Lipner & Newburgh, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KEARSE, CARDAMONE, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.


POOLER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the civil liability provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) by committing fraud and that this fraud induced plaintiffs to invest in certain promissory notes. Plaintiffs also allege state common law claims of fraud and misrepresentation and deceptive...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases