Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing J.N. Bhatia And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 20 December, 2006

Amit Kumar Sharma vs Cdps Electronics on 17 December, 2021

11. Petitioner relied upon law laid down in case titled as J.N. Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 2007 III AD (Delhi) 142 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as below:­ "It can therefore, be safely concluded that the view, which is now accepted by the Supreme Court, is that mere repetition of phraseology contained in Section 141 of the NI Act i.e. "the accused is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the company" may not be sufficient and something more is to be alleged to show as to how he was so responsible."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Kumar Sharma vs Cdps Electronics on 17 December, 2021

11. Petitioners relied upon law laid down in case titled as J.N. Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 2007 III AD (Delhi) 142 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as below:­ "It can therefore, be safely concluded that the view, which is now accepted by the Supreme Court, is that mere repetition of phraseology contained in Section 141 of the NI Act i.e. "the accused is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the company" may not be sufficient and something more is to be alleged to show as to how he was so responsible."
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Kumar Sharma vs Cdps Electronics on 17 December, 2021

11. Petitioner relied upon law laid down in case titled as J.N. Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 2007 III AD (Delhi) 142 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as below:­ "It can therefore, be safely concluded that the view, which is now accepted by the Supreme Court, is that mere repetition of phraseology contained in Section 141 of the NI Act i.e. "the accused is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the company" may not be sufficient and something more is to be alleged to show as to how he was so responsible."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Kumar Sharma vs Cdps Electronics on 17 December, 2021

11. Petitioner relied upon law laid down in case titled as J.N. Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 2007 III AD (Delhi) 142 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as below:­ "It can therefore, be safely concluded that the view, which is now accepted by the Supreme Court, is that mere repetition of phraseology contained in Section 141 of the NI Act i.e. "the accused is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the company" may not be sufficient and something more is to be alleged to show as to how he was so responsible."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Kumar Sharma vs Cdps Electronics on 17 December, 2021

11. Petitioner relied upon law laid down in case titled as J.N. Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 2007 III AD (Delhi) 142 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as below:­ "It can therefore, be safely concluded that the view, which is now accepted by the Supreme Court, is that mere repetition of phraseology contained in Section 141 of the NI Act i.e. "the accused is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the company" may not be sufficient and something more is to be alleged to show as to how he was so responsible."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H.R. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 12 February, 2008

As pointed out by this Court in J.N. Bhatia v. State 139 (2007) DLT 361 where a Form 32 is filed after the date of the issuance of the cheque that still would be a matter of leading evidence at the trial. If however, the Form 32 was filed before the issuance of the dishonoured cheque then such Form 32 can safely be acted upon to quash the complaint.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 10 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next