Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.39 seconds)

Abhijit Pawar vs Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar on 14 December, 2016

(ii) Second argument of the appellant was that there is no vicarious liability in criminal defamation and a person can be held liable only for his own act where he has the necessary mens rea, i.e., criminal mind. It was submitted that A-1 was, in fact, placed in the same position as A-2 and, therefore, the High Court should have quashed the process against A-1 as well, on the parity of reasoning adopted in the case of A-2. To buttress this submission, the learned counsel took aid of the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd.3 laying emphasis, in particular, on para 13 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 23 - Cited by 198 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Shanthi Radhakrishnan vs State Rep. By on 24 November, 2016

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 662  S.K.Alagh V. State of U.P., (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 479  Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd V. Datar Switchgear and (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609  Sunil Bharti Mittal V. CBI, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Code does not cast vicarious liability on a party not directly charged for commission of an offence, unless specifically provided therefor.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document
1