Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (2.80 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs J.B. Bottling Company Private Limited on 14 March, 1975

Manian Transports And Others vs S. Krishna Moorthy, Income-Tax Officer on 5 October, 1990

The said case, therefore, did not run counter to the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J. B. Bottling Co. P. Ltd. [1975] Crl. LJ 1148. Agreeing with the Full Bench decision of the Delhi Court, the Allahabad Full Bench concluded that a sentence of fine alone can be awarded to a company under section 16 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Manian Transports And Others vs S. Krishna Moorthy, Income-Tax Officer on 5 October, 1990

The said case, therefore, did not run counter to the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J.B. Bottling Co. P. Ltd. (1975) Crl. LJ 1148. Aggreeing with the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court, the Allahabad Full Bench conclude that a sentence of fine alone can be awarded to a company under section 16 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs J.B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. on 12 May, 1978

(7) The appeal went back to the division bench for disposal. This time counsel for the company raised a new contention. He argued that the food inspector Chander Singh was not qualified to be appointed a food inspector as the evidence showed that he owned one share in a cooperative store of the Municipal Corporation. The division bench (Jagjit Singh and M. S. Joshi JJ) made a second referring order on August Ii, 1975, inviting the opinion of the full bench on the question whether holding of one or more share in the Municipal Corporation Cooperative Stores Ltd. amounted to having a financial interest in the manufacture, import or sale of articles of food within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act. A full bench of this court (T.V.R. Tatachari Cj, Prithvi Raj and Yogeshwar Dayal JJ) again assembled to hear the reference. On November 9, 1977, the full bench returned the answer to the question in the affirmative. They held that the food inspector Chander Singh had a financial interest and that was a disqualification for appointment of a food inspector : See Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J. B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. . Now with this opinion the case has come to us. RELEVANTstatutory provisions:
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr. on 1 May, 1978

8. Shri Sareen, on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the decision of the High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J. B. Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1975 Cri LJ 1148 (Delhi) (FB), (supra), by which the Court had overruled its earlier decision would apply to the cases in future and it cannot be given retrospective effect; in other words, according to the counsel, the doctrine of prospective overruling should be applied.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rishikesh Balkishan Das And Ors. vs I.D. Manchanda on 12 September, 1986

This decision was no doubt a decision direct on the point under consideration but cannot be accepted as good law in' view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in J. B. Bottimg CO.'s case (supra) Learned Single Judge in D. C. Goel's case (supra) had relied on the Division Bench decision in M/s. Rameshwar Dass Chottey Lal Vs. Union of India, 2nd (1969) Delhi 1196 which was over-ruled by the Full Bench.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Chand And Ors. on 30 January, 1984

(16) On 16th July 1975 the magistrate passed an order for impleading Ram Chand and Mangha Ram and the firm M/s. Mangha Ram Ram Chand as accused. The above order was passed under Section 20-A. (17) We may mention here that the firm Mangha Ram Ram Chand was not imp leaded earlier, as an accused for the reason noticed by us above but since in the meantime in case [M.C.D. v. J. B. Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. 1975(1) FA.C. 321(4)] it was held that a company could be convicted in respect of an offence which is compulsorily punishable with imprisonment, the magistrate decided to implead Mangha Ram Ram Chand also as an accused.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharma Pratishthan And Ors. vs B. Mandal And Anr. on 26 May, 1988

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J.B. Bottling Company Private Ltd., 1975 Cri. L.J. 1148, one of the points raised in this case was whether the offences where corporal punishment and fine are provided as mandatory provisions, whether a legal person like company could be found guilty of such an offence. After considering the case law in detail, it was held by the Full Bench that in such a case the legal person could be held to be guilty of the offences and can be punished with the fine even though the sentence of imprisonment cannot be awarded.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next