Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing Sushil Singla And Anr. vs Haripal Singh on 10 November, 1993

T.P. Singh Kalra vs Star Wire India Ltd. on 28 January, 1998

In Sushil Singla v. Haripal Singh [1994] 1 RCR 621, the facts were that Haripal Singh filed a complaint in respect of a cheque dated March 8, 1992, drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for Rs. 1,25,000 issued by Qimat Lal Garg, managing director of M.M. Leasing Limited. It was averred that the petitioners, Sushil Singla and Madhu Rani Garg, were simply directors of the company and were neither in charge of nor responsible for the affairs of the company. The cheque was issued by Qimat Lal Garg for and on behalf of the company who was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. The petitioners, Sushil Singla and Madhu Rani Garg, were impleaded as accused although no offence was disclosed against them on a bare reading of the complaint. The complaint was quashed qua Sushil Singla and Madhu Rani Garg as there was no allegation in the complaint against them that when the offence was committed by the company, they were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Allegations in the complaint had been made against the company and its managing director, Qimat Lal Garg, and the cheque had also been issued by the managing director of the company.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - M L Singhal - Full Document

Dushyant A. Gadgil vs Smt. Shanta Godika on 17 April, 2002

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being only the Director of the company is not liable for the criminal act committed by the company, as there is no evidence to show that the ace used petitioner was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. It was also contended that the accused-petitioner had resigned as Director, hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are to bequashed. Reliance has been placed upon B. Lakshmi v. M/s. Trishul Coal Services & Transporters and Ors., I (1998) BC 435=IV (1997) CCR 349= 1997 Crl. L.J. 3616. It was held by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that if the offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is committed by the company, every person who was in- charge and responsible for the affairs and conduct of the business of the company at the time when the alleged offence was committed is also responsible and in case if there is fto allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Similar view was taken in Sushil Singla and Anr. v. Haripal Singh, I (1994) BC 584=1994 Crl.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ghawa Ram And Sons And Ors. vs Punjab Syndicate Finance (India) Pvt. ... on 17 January, 1997

7. The learned advocate for the petitioners has cited before me the case of Sushil Singla v. Haripal Singh [1994] 1 Recent C. R. 621. It has been . held therein that when there was no averment that the said directors were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, the complaint qua directors be quashed. Here in this case, as referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, in complaint annexure P-1, there is an allegation that petitioner No. 1 through its partners (petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) approached the respondent-company for loan and it is also alleged that the loan was to be re-paid by monthly instalments. The cheques, as mentioned above, are also signed on behalf of the partnership and signed by one petitioner alleging himself to be the partner.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1