Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Dayle De Souza vs Government Of India Thr. Deputy Chief ... on 29 October, 2021

Satyam Kumar vs Union Of India Represented By The Labour ... on 1 April, 2026

7. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dayle De' Souza Vs. Government of India (supra) has taken note of the judgments of that Court indicating that in order to make the person vicariously liable for the company it has to be specifically averred that such person was the in charge of the company and was responsible to company for the conduct of the business of the company. Now coming to the facts of the case as in the complaint of this case the complainant has not made any averment that the petitioner was the in charge of the company and was responsible to company for the conduct of the business of the company, namely State Bank of India. The complainant having not done so, this court has no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 29 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, cannot be pressed into service to implicate the petitioner in this case.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Hemant Mahipatray Shah And Anr vs Sahil Arora And Anr on 12 August, 2024

43. It is needless to reiterate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dayle De'Souza Vs. Union of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and another (supra) since it is incumbent upon the Revenue to prove that the offence in question has been committed with the consent or connivance or is 35 of 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:34:35 ::: WP-3039-2022.doc attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the Company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is also in pari materia with the vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as has been observed in paragraph 12 (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Thomas John Muthoot vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2024

18. Dayle De'Souza v. Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (AIR 2021 SC 5626), the Supreme Court, following the law declared in C.V.Parekh and Aneeta Hada (supra), in the context of Section 22C of the Act, held that there is difficulty for the prosecution to proceed if the company has not been made an accused or even summoned to be tried for the offence. The Supreme Court held that prosecution of the company is mandatory.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K Babu - Full Document

Hemant Mahipatray Shah And Anr vs Anand Upadhyay And Anr on 12 August, 2024

43. It is needless to reiterate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dayle De'Souza Vs. Union of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and another (supra) since it is incumbent upon the Revenue to prove that the offence in question has been committed with the consent or connivance or is 35 of 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:33:59 ::: WP-3039-2022.doc attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the Company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is also in pari materia with the vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as has been observed in paragraph 12 (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Hemant Mahipatray Shah And Anr vs Anand Upadhyay And Anr on 12 August, 2024

43. It is needless to reiterate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dayle De'Souza Vs. Union of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and another (supra) since it is incumbent upon the Revenue to prove that the offence in question has been committed with the consent or connivance or is 35 of 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:34:23 ::: WP-3039-2022.doc attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the Company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is also in pari materia with the vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as has been observed in paragraph 12 (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Hemant Mahipatray Shah And Anr vs Anand Upadhyay And Anr on 12 August, 2024

43. It is needless to reiterate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dayle De'Souza Vs. Union of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and another (supra) since it is incumbent upon the Revenue to prove that the offence in question has been committed with the consent or connivance or is 35 of 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:34:10 ::: WP-3039-2022.doc attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the Company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is also in pari materia with the vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as has been observed in paragraph 12 (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Hemant Mahipatray Shah And Anr vs Anand Upadhyay And Anr on 12 August, 2024

43. It is needless to reiterate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dayle De'Souza Vs. Union of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and another (supra) since it is incumbent upon the Revenue to prove that the offence in question has been committed with the consent or connivance or is 35 of 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:34:16 ::: WP-3039-2022.doc attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the Company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is also in pari materia with the vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as has been observed in paragraph 12 (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document

Hemant Mahipatray Shah And Anr vs Anand Upadhyay And Anr on 12 August, 2024

43. It is needless to reiterate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dayle De'Souza Vs. Union of India through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and another (supra) since it is incumbent upon the Revenue to prove that the offence in question has been committed with the consent or connivance or is 35 of 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2024 23:33:48 ::: WP-3039-2022.doc attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company, such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the Company shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This is also in pari materia with the vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as has been observed in paragraph 12 (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - P K Chavan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next