Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 52 (4.46 seconds)Krishna 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].
Shyamal Chakravarty vs Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of ... 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].
Naveen 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].
Nitish 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].
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].
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].
S.P. Mani And Mohan Dairy vs Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan on 16 September, 2022
In yet one another recent pronouncement in the case of
Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuria v. Gharrkul Industries Pvt.
Ltd. reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 915, this Court after due
consideration of the decisions in the case of SMS
Pharmaceuticals (supra); S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2008) 5 SCC 662; Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC
479, and GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India
Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505, observed as under:
“In the light of the ratio in SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra)
and later judgments of which a reference has been made
what is to be looked into is whether in the complaint, in
addition to asserting that the appellants are the Directors of
the Company and they are incharge of and responsible to
the Company for the conduct of the business of the
Company and if statutory compliance of Section 141 of the
NI Act has been made, it may not open for the High Court to
interfere under Section 482 CrPC unless it comes across
37
some unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence which is
beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable
circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director
could not have been concerned with the issuance of
cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abused
of process of Court. Despite the presence of basic averment,
it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out
against the particular Director for which there could be
various reasons.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Heena Thirumali Sateesh vs M/S Minimelt Engineers India on 2 November, 2022
In yet one another recent pronouncement in the
case of Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuria v. Gharrkul
Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 915,
this Court after due consideration of the decisions in the
case of SMS Pharmaceuticals (supra); S.K. Alagh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 662; Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear
Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 479, and GHCL Employees Stock
15
Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 505,
observed as under:--
Gunjan Sinha Jain vs Registrar General,High Court Of Delhi on 9 April, 2012
21. We may also refer to the Supreme Court decision in
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Datar Switchgear
Ltd.: (2010) 10 SCC 479 wherein it observed:-