J.N. Bhatia And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 20 December, 2006
However, that is not correct position in law in view of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 2464 (1.17 seconds)R. Karunanithi vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. And Ors. on 15 January, 2007
In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that proposition (c) of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla 2005 (4) KLT 209 if not proposition (a) is certainly sufficient to persuade this Court to hold that this is not a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked.
A.K. Goenka vs Magma Leasing Limited on 18 July, 2007
26. In this case as already observed the complaint read as a whole shows that at the time of commission of offence the petitioner-accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company. As the essential requirements of Section 141 have been averred in the petition of complaint, so, following principles laid down in the case of SMS Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Neeta Bhalla and Ors. reported in 2005 Cr.LJ at page 4140, it must be said that the complaint contains the essential requirements of Section 141 and the same cannot be quashed on this ground. So the first objection raised by the ld. Lawyer for the petitioner as to maintainability of the case and taking cognizance of an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 against the petitioner accused does not stand.
Capt. D. Karunakar vs Tamilnadu News Print & Papers Ltd on 12 April, 2007
"A plain reading of the said judgment would show that no such general law was laid down therein. The observations were made in the context of the said case as it was dealing with a contention that although no direct averment was made as against the appellant of the said case ...."
Reserved On: 07.08.2025 vs Chander Kanta Chandel & Others on 22 August, 2025
In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005)
8 SCC 89, this Court laid down that mere designation as a
director is not sufficient; specific role and responsibility
must be established in the complaint.
S.Shagunthala Devi vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2018
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.F.B.
Brahmbhatt appearing for respondent No.2 -
complainant has referred the averments made in
Paragraph4 of the impugned complaint and submitted
that sufficient averments are made in the impugned
complaint against the applicant - accused and,
therefore, it is not correct on the part of the
applicant to contend that no specific averments are
made against the applicant. It is submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering earlier
decision rendered in the case of S.M.S.
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another
(supra), as well as other decisions, in subsequent
judgments, considered these aspects and observed that
the powers under Section 482 of the Code can be
exercised sparingly.
Smt. Santosh Devi @Santoshi Devi vs State & Anr. on 7 March, 2024
on which submissions have been advanced. Suffice it to say, that just as
the complainant is entitled to presume in view of provisions of the
Companies Act that the Director was concerned with the issuance of the
cheque, the Director is entitled to contend that he was not concerned with
the issuance of cheque for a variety of reasons. It is for the High Court
to consider these submissions. The High Court may in a given case
on an overall reading of a complaint and having come across some
unimpeachable evidence or glaring circumstances come to a
conclusion that the petition deserves to be allowed despite the
presence of the basic averment. That is the reason why in some cases,
after referring to SMS Pharma (1) [S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1975] , but
considering overall circumstances of the case, this Court has found
that the basic averment was insufficient, that something more was
needed and has quashed the complaint.
Shivani (Sic Shivangi) W/O Tushar Garg ... vs Anuj Shrikant Tiberewala on 8 February, 2019
In Gunmala Sales Private Limited and
others..vs..Navkar Infra Projects Private Limited and others, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while noting that a slightly different view was
taken in N. Rangchari ..vs.. BSNL, (2007)5 SCC 108, held that
the three Judge Bench in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd ..vs.. Neeta
Bhalla holds the field. In Gunmala Sales Private Limited and
others..vs..Navkar Infra Projects Private Limited and others,
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:29:48 :::
9 Apl136of2016
while enunciating that the averment that the partners were in
charge of and were responsible for the conduct of the business of
the firm is a basic requirement which persuades the Magistrate to
issue process against the partners, the Hon'ble Apex Court posed
the question whether the High Court must dismiss the petition
under section 482 of the Code as a rule if it is found that the
complaint does incorporate the basic averments. The question is
answered thus:
Devendra Dang vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 March, 2023
(iii)S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra).
K.Kathirvel vs M/S.Kirorimal Kasiram on 13 August, 2010
16. Similarly, in Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another
[(2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 693], the Honourable Apex Court after following
the judgment rendered in S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another,
has held on the facts of the case that the allegations made in the complaint
even if they are taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose any
offence. Therefore, they are liable to be quashed.