Ravinder Kumar Mahajan vs Sohan Lal And Another on 3 April, 1998
In Samant v. K. G. N. Traders [1995] ISJ (Banking) 35; [1998] 91 Comp Cas 612, the Karnataka High Court has held :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.92 seconds)Documents citing
V. N. Samant vs K.G.N. Traders And Another on 12 August, 1994
M/S Swastik International vs Smt. Rekha V. Shah on 6 November, 2021
15. The evidence clearly indicate that the notice issued to Sri
Dharmil R. Shah who was authorized signatory on behalf of M/s
Swastik International and notice issued is valid notice and he is the
person liable for prosecution. It is also essential to say that the firm
is not a necessary party as reported in ILR 1994 KARNATAKA
2991 - V.N. SAMANT VS. K.G.N. TRADERS, wherein it is held
that carrying firm as party, a person incharge and responsible for
conduct all business of firm can be proceeded against.
Vaikundamani vs Bakrudeen on 17 March, 2022
59.In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of
a company as an accused is imperative. The other
categories of offenders can only be brought in the
dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the
same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say
so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh
(supra) which is a three-Judge Bench decision.
S.Padmanabhan vs E.Rajagopalan on 17 March, 2022
59.In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of
a company as an accused is imperative. The other
8/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.21748 to 21751 of 2018
categories of offenders can only be brought in the
dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the
same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say
so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh
(supra) which is a three-Judge Bench decision.
Vaikundamani vs Bakrudeen on 17 March, 2022
59.In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the
prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of
a company as an accused is imperative. The other
categories of offenders can only be brought in the
dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the
same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say
so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh
(supra) which is a three-Judge Bench decision.
K.B. Santosh And Ors. vs Sebastin Joseph And Anr. on 19 December, 1996
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners however, submitted that, this Court has taken a different view on the ground that, if the order discloses that the cognizance was taken subsequent to the recording of sworn statement, itself is sufficient to quash the proceeding However, this court in a Decision reported in SAMANT vs. K.G.N.TRADERS which reads as under :
B.A. Srinivasa Guptha And Ors. vs State By Superintendent Of Police, ... on 28 May, 2002
So far as taking cognizance in the second case is concerned, relying upon the decisions in the cases of V.N. Samant v K.G.N. Traders and Anr.,
State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi and Ors.,
, Sri Bhag-wan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State ofAndhra Pradesh and Ors., 1999(3) KCCR 2361
and Jatinder Singh and Ors., v. Ranjit Kaur,
it is contended that the second complaint is maintainable one.
M/S Roy Brothers vs Rakesh Sood on 6 December, 2016
(2006) 6 Supreme Courts cases 456; "Samant vs K. G. N. Traders" 1994
SCC OnLine Kar 207; "P. V. R. S Manikumar vs Krishna Reddy" 1999
SCC OnLine Mad 107; "Rallis India Limited vs Poduru Vidya Bhushan
and others" (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 88; "Gunmala Sales
Private Limited vs Anu Mehta and others" (2015) 1 Supreme Courts
cases 103; "K. R. Indira vs Dr. G. Adinarayana" (2003) 8 Supreme
Courts Cases 300 and "Rahul Builders vs Arihant Fertilizers and
Chemicals" 2008 (2) SCC 321.
M/S Roy Brothers vs Dipti Sood on 6 December, 2016
(2006) 6 Supreme Courts cases 456; "Samant vs K. G. N. Traders" 1994
SCC OnLine Kar 207; "P. V. R. S Manikumar vs Krishna Reddy" 1999
SCC OnLine Mad 107; "Rallis India Limited vs Poduru Vidya Bhushan
and others" (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 88; "Gunmala Sales
Private Limited vs Anu Mehta and others" (2015) 1 Supreme Courts
cases 103; "K. R. Indira vs Dr. G. Adinarayana" (2003) 8 Supreme
Courts Cases 300 and "Rahul Builders vs Arihant Fertilizers and
Chemicals" 2008 (2) SCC 321.
W/O Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs Is Acquitted on 2 March, 2015
4. ILR 1994 KAR 2991
(V.N.Samant Vs KGN Traders another)