Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 924 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing R. Kalyani vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors on 24 October, 2008

Deepak Shakdher vs G.D. Foods Mfg (I) Pvt Ltd. on 6 May, 2015

5. R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 "32. Allegations contained in the FIR are for commission of offences under a general statute. A vicarious liability can be fastened only by reason of a provision of a statute and not otherwise. For the said purpose, a legal fiction has to be CRL.M.C Nos.3427/2011, 3538/2011, 3539/2011 & 3540/2011 Page 17 of 20 created. Even under a special statute when the vicarious criminal liability is fastened on a person on the premise that he was in charge of the affairs of the company and responsible to it, all the ingredients laid down under the statute must be fulfilled. A legal fiction must be confined to the object and purport for which it has been created."
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - M Gupta - Full Document

Mansion House Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 June, 2023

The Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Kalyani (supra) has specifically formulated that " (4) if the allegations disclosed a civil dispute, the same by itself can not be a ground to hold the criminal procedure should not be allowed to continue. The view 25 of the Hon'ble Apex Court has indicated above is very much correct but the petition of complaint of the instant case does not make out the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 420 of 406 IPC thus at this juncture after considering the entire materials on record, I am of a view that if the criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued that would amount the abuse of process of court. The pendency of a civil case between the parties is not a ground to quash the criminal proceeding but on merit the criminal proceeding pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, particularly, the complaint case registered on the basis of the Naraji petition of the opposite party no. 2 is missing the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 420 and 406 IPC.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prasad Vaze @ Prasad Madhav Vaze vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2026

No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026 16/22 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others (Supra) in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person has to be proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the act of the company, the company must be made an accused in the case and the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Rahul Bajaj vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2025

31. The contention of the petitioner no. 02 that no offence is made out against the petitioner no. 02 as he is the Managing Director of the company and the company has not been made a party, the same is in teeth of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others (Supra) in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person has to be proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the act of the company, the company must be made an accused in the case and the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Awdhesh Sharma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 28 May, 2015

There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when one or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta (supra) is attracted, which are as under: (SCC p. 523, para 15) ''(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - H Kumar - Full Document

Gajanand Bhalotia vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi on 10 January, 2014

In stead of the company being charge sheeted, the petitioners, who are the Directors of M/s.BEBBCO and also Nitish Bhalotia who is the Director of M/s. Bharat Automobile Pvt. Ltd. have been charge sheeted without there being any allegation that these petitioners were responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company and on account of this alone, the petitioners being Directors cannot be prosecuted in view of the decision rendered in a case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another vs. Datar Switchgear and others [(2010) 10 SCC 479] and R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and others [(2009) 1 SCC 516].
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

Dr. Vijay Shankar Narayan Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Thr S.P., C on 10 January, 2014

In stead of the company being charge sheeted, the petitioners, who are the Directors of M/s.BEBBCO and also Nitish Bhalotia who is the Director of M/s. Bharat Automobile Pvt. Ltd. have been charge sheeted without there being any allegation that these petitioners were responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company and on account of this alone, the petitioners being Directors cannot be prosecuted in view of the decision rendered in a case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and another vs. Datar Switchgear and others [(2010) 10 SCC 479] and R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and others [(2009) 1 SCC 516].
Jharkhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - R R Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next