Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 117 (4.97 seconds)
Documents citing The Assistant Commissioner, ... vs M/S. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr on 16 September, 2003

Anz Grindlays Bank Limited & Ors., Etc vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Ors., Etc on 5 May, 2005

The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant in this behalf is that the statutes creating criminal liability have to be strictly construed. When a statute prescribes punishment of imprisonment and fine, it is not permissible for the court to award punishment of fine alone. A corporation being a juristic person cannot be awarded the punishment of imprisonment. The appellants contend that when a statutory provision cannot be complied with as per its strict language, the consequence should be that there can be no prosecution. There is no sense in prosecuting somebody when the punishment cannot be awarded as per the mandate of the statute. The present reference to a larger Bench for consideration of this question was made in view of a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore & Others vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. And another [2003 (11) SCC 405]. In the said judgment two learned Judges who formed the majority, took the view favouring the proposition advanced by the appellants, that is, in such a situation a corporation cannot be prosecuted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 15 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

Apna Ghar (W) Chs Association Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 29 August, 2022

68. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner Assessment-II Banglalore & Ors., Vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (11) SCC 405 and in particular paragraphs 5 to 8 in support of her submission that the order passed by the State Government being an administrative order, no personal hearing was required to be rendered by the State Government to the petitioners or any other party affected in view of such permission granted by the State Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank And Others vs Directorate Of Enforcement And Others on 24 February, 2006

17. Considerable amount of argument was raised as to who is the person who is liable to be prosecuted under Section 68(1) as in charge of or responsible for the affairs of the company. The question whether a particular person who is sought to be prosecuted under Section 68(1) of the Act, is the person who is liable to be prosecuted under Section 68(1), is a question that has to be raised at the trial. We have already noticed the scope of the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals. The question sought to be raised on this aspect based on the various decisions of the English Courts and the decision of this Court in Valliappa Textiles Ltd. and Another (supra) depends upon the facts of the case proved before the Court dealing with the prosecution and it is not necessary for us to pronounce on those aspects in these appeals. Suffice it to say, that the arguments on this score are of no avail while considering the constitutional challenge to Section 68 of the Act as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We reject the contention, leaving it to the concerned appellant to raise that plea before the appropriate forum regarding his culpability under Section 68(1) of FERA.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 226 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

The Samarth Nagar Lokhandwala Complex ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 29 August, 2022

68. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner Assessment-II Banglalore & Ors., Vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (11) SCC 405 and in particular paragraphs 5 to 8 in support of her submission that the order passed by the State Government being an administrative order, no personal hearing was required to be rendered by the State Government to the petitioners or any other party affected in view of such permission granted by the State Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Pankaj Unit No. 1 Housing Development ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 29 August, 2022

68. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner Assessment-II Banglalore & Ors., Vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (11) SCC 405 and in particular paragraphs 5 to 8 in support of her submission that the order passed by the State Government being an administrative order, no personal hearing was required to be rendered by the State Government to the petitioners or any other party affected in view of such permission granted by the State Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Apna Ghar (East) Chs Association Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 29 August, 2022

68. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner Assessment-II Banglalore & Ors., Vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (11) SCC 405 and in particular paragraphs 5 to 8 in support of her submission that the order passed by the State Government being an administrative order, no personal hearing was required to be rendered by the State Government to the petitioners or any other party affected in view of such permission granted by the State Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Oshiwara Land Development Company Pvt ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 8 Ors on 29 August, 2022

68. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner Assessment-II Banglalore & Ors., Vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr., 2003 (11) SCC 405 and in particular paragraphs 5 to 8 in support of her submission that the order passed by the State Government being an administrative order, no personal hearing was required to be rendered by the State Government to the petitioners or any other party affected in view of such permission granted by the State Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Bhaskar Tea And Industries Ltd. vs State on 16 October, 2007

The decision in Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2004 SCC (Cri) 551 has been cited and it is submitted that till Velliappa Textiles case it has been the perception in the Indian judiciary that no matter what are the words in the statute. Corporate bodies cannot be prosecuted against primarily because of the fact that awarding corporeal punishment is impossible and secondly mens rea was absent. So far as the mens rea or guilty mind is concerned, I have discussed the point in the preceding paragraphs with reference to the observation of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank and the observation in Treaties of Craies on Statute Law. Now the question is whether in view of the decisions of this Court in the early nineties, the prosecution against the company can be dropped on the premise that it cannot be sent to prison. Mr. Bhattacharjee invokes the doctrine of casus omissus to argue that it was only in the Standard Chartered Bank that the majority view held that even though company cannot be sent to prison as it is impossible to do so, it can be visited with fine and in spite of mandatory imprisonment provided in the statute, company can be prosecuted against and punished with payment of fine and it cannot be argued that the intention of the Legislature has been to exclude the companies in the grave offences. Mr. Bhattacharjee's contention is that the principle underlined in the decision of Standard Chartered to the effect that the company can be prosecuted against and visited with penalty of fine, cannot be made applicable to the instant case of ours, because the decision of the Standard Chartered came into being in May, 2005 while the offence was committed in 1993 and this decision cannot be made applicable to the offences which were committed before the decision came into being. It is argued with an analogy that Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides for punishment in case payment of provident fund dues is not made within the statutory period of time. There was a decision of this High Court that pre-launching of prosecution payment would absolve the accused of being prosecuted against. This was the view in Hooghly Docking and Engineering Co. 1980(1) CHN 280.
Calcutta High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Avinash vs Unitech Ltd. on 14 June, 2017

In view of above discussion as well as the law laid down in the above noted authorities, we are of the view that since the respondents /JDs Company has failed to comply with the order, it is liable to be punished with fine only for the disobedience of the order passed by this Commission in the complaint.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next