Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 151 (4.06 seconds)
Documents citing Deewan Singh & Ors. Ã Appellants vs Rajendra Pd. Ardevi & Ors. Ã Respondents on 4 January, 2007

Reliance Industries Limited vs State Of U.P.,Thru. Prin. ... on 7 September, 2012

262- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the cases have been cited keeping in view the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court under the particular facts and circumstances of the case and judgments are in personam and not in rem. It is well settled law that the judgment should be read in reference to context vide 2002 (4) SCC 297 Grasim Industries Limited v. Collector of Customs; 2003 SCC (1) 410 Easland Combines v. CCE; 2006 (5) SCC 745 A. N. Roy v. Suresh Sham Singh and 2007 (10) SCC 528 Deewan Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi.
Allahabad High Court Cites 197 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Tulsi Sugar Mill (Excise ) vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 July, 2010

Now it is trite in law that while construing an Act, Rule or Regulation each and every word, every line, para should be given meaning and considered in its totality and not in piecemeal vide 2002 (4) SCC 297 Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Customs; 2003 SCC (1) 410 Easland Combines Vs. CCE; 2006 (5) SCC 745 A.N.Roy Vs. Suresh Sham Singh and 2007 (10) SCC 528 Deewan Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D P Singh - Full Document

Shiv Om Sharma vs Atul Kumar Singh on 13 September, 2022

The same principle has been reiterated in Deewan Singh and others v. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi and others, (2007) 10 SCC 528 and Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 417. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Thus, the words "as well as the 6 of 7 company" appearing in the Section make it absolutely unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a director is indicted.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Mr. Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar vs Mr. Laxmikant Govind Joshi on 7 July, 2022

The applicability of Section 148 of the N.I. Act is at the appellate stage, where right to the compensation/fine, if awarded by the Trial/Special Court, stands crystallized in favour of the complainant and thus there arises a duty in the Appellate Court to order the deposit of twenty percent of the fine or compensation awarded, whereas in proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, since the Court is still 'trying the offence', no right is crystallized in CRI WP 48 of 2022.odt 38 favour of the complainant for any compensation/fine as in a given case, based upon the evidence which may come on record the Trial Court may dismiss the complaint itself or may do so even at an earlier stage, and thus there is no duty cast upon the Court trying the offence, to direct deposit upto 20% of the cheque amount, rather, what is conferred, would be a discretion, to be exercised by the Court trying the offence, based upon the fact position prevailing in each case and therefore in my considered opinion, there is no 'duty to act', upon the Court, spelt out by the provisions of Section 143-A of the N.I. Act, considering which Frederic Guilder Julius (supra); Jogendra Singh (supra), Deewan Singh (supra) and judgments taking a similar view would clearly not be applicable. 9.2. This is supplemented by the fact that from a plain reading of Section 143-A of the N.I. Act, it is clear that it is a provision enacted as an interim measure, during the pendency of the trial, when the guilt of the accused is still to be determined. The word 'may', thus used in Section 143-A (1) of the N.I. Act, has to be construed in light of the fact that the direction to award compensation, is at the trial stage and as an interim measure. The CRI WP 48 of 2022.odt 39 fact that even in cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, is not absolute, but is rebuttable, also has to be borne in mind. That apart, in a particular case, given the requirement of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it may so happen that the complaint itself may not be maintainable, for the cheque not having been presented during the period of its validity; the notice not having been issued in the stipulated time; the complaint not having been filed within the time stipulated therefor; the debt may not be a legally enforceable debt or liability; the memo/advice regarding dishonor not having been placed on record etc. These are only some of the instances and do not cover the entire plethora of causes, which may make the complaint itself not maintainable. To direct the grant of interim compensation, in such cases, merely because of the existence of a cheque, by holding that doing so is mandatory, would not be justifiable. 9.3. It is further material to note that the power to direct interim compensation under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act, can be equated with the provisions as contained in Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the C.P.C., which confers a power upon the Court to direct the CRI WP 48 of 2022.odt 40 defendant to furnish security in such sum as may be specified, during the pendency of the suit, which provision is directory in nature and the use of the power is discretionary. 9.4. Section 143-A of the N.I. Act, though enacted with an intent to ensure speedy disposal of the proceeding pending under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the said intent, insofar as Section143-A of the N.I. Act is concerned, does not make the provision mandatory, as what is conferred upon the Court by virtue of the said provision is a discretion to direct interim compensation and no right is created in the complainant under it, to demand the entitlement to compensation.
Bombay High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 21 - A G Gharote - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next