Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Rangabashyam vs Ramesh on 23 July, 2019

Proddaturi Shobha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11825 of 2014 4 have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Proddaturi Shibha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11817 of 2014 4 criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Praoddaturi Shibha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11822 of 2014 4 criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Proddaturi Shobha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11818 of 2014 6 criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Praoddaturi Shibha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11824 of 2014 4 have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Praoddaturi Shibha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11820 of 2014 4 criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Praoddaturi Shibha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11823 of 2014 4 have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Praoddaturi Shibha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 4 UDPR, J WP.No.11821 of 2014 would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Proddaturi Shobha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs P.P., Hyd Ano on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11819 of 2014 4 would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Proddaturi Shobha Rani Shobha Rani, ... vs S.H.O., Dharmavaram Town P.S., ... on 24 January, 2020

5. Secondly, learned counsel would argue that even assuming for argument sake that the petitioners are active partners in the partnership firm of the accused, nevertheless, the criminal complaint is not maintainable against the individual partners i.e., A1 to A5 without arraying partnership firm as one of the accused. In-expatiation he would submit, as per complaint averments, A1 took sarees on credit on behalf of their partnership firm viz., M/s.P. Neelakantam and Sons. In that view, if at all any offence is committed, that should be attributable at the first instance to the partnership firm and then only to the individual partners who are in active participation of the firm's business. Learned counsel strenuously argued that there can be no vicarious liability under criminal law. Therefore, leaving firm, the complainant cannot file 1 (2002) 7 SCC 655 UDPR,J Crl.P.No.11826 of 2014 4 criminal case against the individual partners even assuming that they have, in the course of the firm's business committed the offence. He would thus argue that the criminal case is not legally maintainable against the partners without showing the firm as party/accused. On this legal point, he relied upon Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Limited2, N. Elangovan vs. C. Ganesan3 and Rangabashyam vs. Ramesh4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 Next