Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 November, 2021

He is residing at different address and at no stage summons were served upon him. It has been further contended that no summon was served upon the petitioner as the registered office of the Company has been shifted from DLF Gateway Towers, DLF City Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002 with effect from 9th December, 2002 to 13 Adbul Fazal Road, New Delhi, 110001, with effect from 9th August, 2007 to 111, Rectangal-1, Saket District 6 Centre, New Delhi and with effect from 8 th July, 2016 to Y-65, Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 and corporate office of the company has been shifted from October, 2007 from 11th Floor, DLF Gateway Towers, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002 to 14th Floor, Building No. 9A, DLF Cyber City, Guraon-122002, as such, there was no information about the present proceedings and the absence of the accused was not deliberate but because of non-service of proper summon. He would lastly submit that warrant of arrest issued against accused No. 4 - Hardeep Singh and proceedings against the Company for violation of Section 7(i) of the Act, 1954, which is punishable under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 may kindly be quashed. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court & High Courts in the matters of Shiv Kumar alias Shiwalamal Narumal Chugwani v. State of Maharashtra1, Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani and another2, Ravindra Chopade v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3, Marico Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Anr. 4, ITC Ltd. & others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh5, Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P.6, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 7, M/s Cargill India Private Limited v. State of Haryana and another 8, Ahmed Dababhai Advani v. State of Maharashtra 9, M/s. Gurulakshmi Food Products, Guntur vs. The State of A.P. 10, Sri Shravan Kumar Agarwal v. The State of A.P. 11, M. Durga Rao v. The State of A.P.12, D. Rama Moorthy v. Food Inspector, Perambra Circle, Vadakara & another13, M/s Hindustan Lever Limited & another v. The State of Chhattisgarh14 and Sandeep Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh15 in support of their submissions.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

M/S Cargill India Private Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 November, 2021

He is residing at different address and at no stage summons were served upon him. It has been further contended that no summon was served upon the petitioner as the registered office of the Company has been shifted from DLF Gateway Towers, DLF City Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002 with effect from 9th December, 2002 to 13 Adbul Fazal Road, New Delhi, 110001, with effect from 9th August, 2007 to 111, Rectangal-1, Saket District 6 Centre, New Delhi and with effect from 8 th July, 2016 to Y-65, Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 and corporate office of the company has been shifted from October, 2007 from 11th Floor, DLF Gateway Towers, DLF Cyber City, Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002 to 14th Floor, Building No. 9A, DLF Cyber City, Guraon-122002, as such, there was no information about the present proceedings and the absence of the accused was not deliberate but because of non-service of proper summon. He would lastly submit that warrant of arrest issued against accused No. 4 - Hardeep Singh and proceedings against the Company for violation of Section 7(i) of the Act, 1954, which is punishable under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 may kindly be quashed. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court & High Courts in the matters of Shiv Kumar alias Shiwalamal Narumal Chugwani v. State of Maharashtra1, Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani and another2, Ravindra Chopade v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3, Marico Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Anr. 4, ITC Ltd. & others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh5, Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P.6, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram 7, M/s Cargill India Private Limited v. State of Haryana and another 8, Ahmed Dababhai Advani v. State of Maharashtra 9, M/s. Gurulakshmi Food Products, Guntur vs. The State of A.P. 10, Sri Shravan Kumar Agarwal v. The State of A.P. 11, M. Durga Rao v. The State of A.P.12, D. Rama Moorthy v. Food Inspector, Perambra Circle, Vadakara & another13, M/s Hindustan Lever Limited & another v. The State of Chhattisgarh14 and Sandeep Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh15 in support of their submissions.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Narayan Das Gandi & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 February, 2017

In view of the aforesaid given facts and circumstances of the case also relying on the decisions referred above, this Court is of the opinion that further continuation of the Criminal Case against the Petitioners is of no consequence and would be an action of empty formality, once when it has been clearly established that the 7 prosecution would not in any manner lead to the conviction of the Petitioners.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P S Koshy - Full Document
1