Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors on 13 August, 2008

P.Murthy vs M/S.Sri Venkateswara Steels on 17 March, 2016

In another judgement reported in (2008) 17 SCC 147 (Malwa Cotton and Spinning Mills Limited v. Virsa Singh Sidhu and others), the High court quashed the proceedings on the ground that there was no specific allegations and some general allegations were made that all Directors were responsible. However, the Apex Court held that factual disputes were involved, which were required to be established in trial and the High court was not justified in quashing the proceedings while dealing with application under section 482 and accordingly, allowed the appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Partha Pratim Borthakur vs M/S Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd on 31 July, 2017

12) The mandate of Section 141, as interpreted in Harm eet Singh Paintal, (supra), is that only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company.
Gauhati High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H K Sarma - Full Document

Bosco Sairo@ Bomko Sairo@ Bosco Soeiro vs Gour Pan on 10 May, 2023

Firstly- whether the Hon'ble High Court while exercising its power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- quash a proceeding where a factual disputes are involved?-- He submitted that in the present case it is the contention of the petitioner that at the date of occurrence he was not an employee of Bharati Airtel Limited; on the other hand the complainant and his witnesses stated before the Learned Magistrate that the petitioner was present and assaulted the O.P. at the P.O This is a factual dispute which can only be established during trial but in this stage i.e during this proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C the High Court cannot looked into the factual disputes of the parties. He cited a decision in (2008) 17 SCC 147 Malwa Cotton and Spinning Mills Limited Vs. Virsa Sing Sidhu and Ors.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Jain vs State on 3 January, 2012

12. The question of there being sale of the said property as claimed by the complainant and refuted by the petitioner, it is observed that such disputed questions of facts are triable by the trial court and it is neither appropriate nor possible at this stage to go into all this. As per the Supreme Court in Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Virsa Singh Sidhu (2008) 17 SCC 147 when such disputed questions of facts are involved petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not lie. The FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case, the learned MM was of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Naresh Jain vs State on 3 January, 2012

12. The question of there being sale of the said property as claimed by the complainant and refuted by the petitioner, it is observed that such disputed questions of facts are triable by the trial court and it is neither appropriate nor possible at this stage to go into all this. As per the Supreme Court in Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Virsa Singh Sidhu (2008) 17 SCC 147 when such disputed questions of facts are involved petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not lie. The FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case, the learned MM was of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M L Mehta - Full Document

S.Rajarathinavel vs Visalatchi Enterprises on 5 July, 2013

In Malwa Cotton and Spinning Mills Ltd's case (cited supra), it is held that whether in fact the respondent No.1's claim to have resigned was factually correct would have been established in trial and the High Court could not have passed the impugned judgment while dealing with the application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, it is held that in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings relating to the complaint filed against an accused/Director of the Company alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, 1881 the High Court is not justified in quashing the said proceedings on the ground that the accused had resigned from the Directorship before the cheques were issued, since the question as to whether in fact the claim of the accused pertaining to his resignation was factually correct or not, is not a question which could have been gone into a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - T Mathivanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next