S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
(iii)S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.89 seconds)Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S. S. Deswal vs Virender Gandhi on 29 May, 2019
12. Per contra, Ms. Y.N. Katpitia for respondent No.2 in Writ
Petition No. 3443 OF 2022 submitted that the petitioner had been
held guilty under section 138 of the NI Act read with section
141(1)(2). According to her, the term drawer used in section 148
includes all persons responsible for drawing the dishonoured
cheque and includes each and every person held guilty who, at the
time of the offence committed, was in charge and was responsible
to the company for the conduct of its business. It also includes
every person who is proved to have consented to or connived for
the offence or to whom the offence is attributable. Absolving the
authorised signatory of a company from the purview of section 148
of the NI Act will completely defeat the purpose of section 148.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S. S. vs. Virender Gandhi
reported in Criminal Appeal Nos.1936-1963 of 2019, she
submitted that the Apex Court had directed the accused to deposit
a minimum of 20% amount of fine and compensation awarded by
the Trial Court. She submitted that if the petitioner's interpretation
of section 148 is accepted, it would amply that in no case of
dishonoured cheque, suspension of sentence of imprisonment can
be ordered by the Appellate Court on condition of deposit and
every order of suspension of a sentence need to be passed without
deposit of any amount. According to her, section 148 applies to all
23
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2023 12:07:07 :::
wp4128-2021 & connected-Final.doc
appellants filing an appeal against conviction under section 138 of
the Act. She emphasised on word 'appellant' in sub section (1) of
section 148 to urge that if the legislature intended to restrict the
ambit of section 148 of the NI Act to only the drawer against the
conviction, the legislature would have provided so in the section
instead of using the word 'appellant'.
Special Officer & Competent Authority ... vs P.S. Rao on 17 January, 2000
Indian Immigration Trust Board of Natal v
Govindaswamy, AIR 1920 PC 114, p 116; Vanguard Fire
43
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2023 12:07:07 :::
wp4128-2021 & connected-Final.doc
and General Insurance Co Ltd, Madras v Fraser & Ross ,
AIR 1960 SC 971, p 975 Special Officer and Competent
Authority Urban Land Ceilings Hyderabad v PS Rao,AIR
2000 SC 843, p 844].
N. Harihara Krishnan vs J. Thomas on 30 August, 2017
Drawing distinction in the observations made in paragraph
20 of Aneeta Hada (supra) and para 22 of N. Hariharu
Krishnan (supra), it is submitted that the observations
made in paragraph 22 constitute ratio and, therefore, bind
this court.
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
In this regard, a reference must also be made to a judgment
by the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Gannon
Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. AIR 1958 SC 560 , where
the true meaning of the word "sale" as used in Entry 48 and Entry
54 was examined at length. It was observed after considering the
earlier cases of the Supreme Court "that the expression 'sale of
38
::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2023 12:07:07 :::
wp4128-2021 & connected-Final.doc
goods' in Entry 48 cannot be construed in its popular sense and
that it must be interpreted in its legal sense." Tracing from the
Roman Law of emptio venditio, the Supreme Court considered "the
common law of England relating to sales which had developed
very much on the lines of the Roman Law in insisting on an
agreement between parties and price as essential elements of a
contract of sale of goods" and referring to the codification of the
law in England by the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, and the Indian Sale
of Goods Act, 1930, Venkatarama Aiyyar J. explained the general
rule of construction that words used in statutes must be taken in
their legal sense and observed,
"22. ..............the ratio of the rule of interpretation that
words of legal import occurring in a statute should be
construed in their legal sense is that those words have, in
law, acquired a definite and precise sence, and that,
accordingly, the legislature must be taken to have intended
that they should be understood in that sense. In interpreting
an expression used in a legal sense, therefore, we have only
to ascertain the precise connotation which it possesses in law.
It has been already stated that, both under the common law
and the statute law relating to sale of goods in England and
in India, to constitute a transaction of sale there should be an
agreement, express or implied, relating to goods to be
completed by passing of title in those goods. It is of the
essence of this concept that both the agreement and the sale
should relate to the same subject-matter. .............."
Pawan Kumar Goel vs State Of U.P. on 17 November, 2022
wp4128-2021 & connected-Final.doc
(xviii) In support of his submission, he relied on the
judgments in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, Major
General A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur reported in
(1986) 2 SCC 709, Nandkishor Prallhad Vyvhare v.
Mangala W/o Pratap Bansar reported in (2018) 3 MhLJ
913, Pawan Kumar Goel V. State of U.P. & Anr.
S.P. Mani And Mohan Dairy vs Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan on 16 September, 2022
reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1598, S.P. Mani and
Mohan Dairy v. Snehlatha Elangovan reported in
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1238, Sunita Palita v. Panchami
Stone Quarry reported in 2022 SC OnLine SCC 945, K.K.
Ahuja v. V.K. Vora reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48,
National Small-Scale Industries Corporation v.
Harmeet Singh (2010) 3 SCC 330, Pooja Ravinder
Devidsani v. State of Maharashtra and another
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1, Surinder Singh Deswal
and Ors. v. Virendra Gandhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC
341, CESC Ltd and Others Vs. Subhash Chandra
Bose and Others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 441,
Yudhistir v. Ashok Kumar reported in (1987) 1 SCC 204,
Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa reported in
(1996) 5 SCC 1, Regina v. Cuthbertson and Ors.
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr on 15 February, 2010
reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1598, S.P. Mani and
Mohan Dairy v. Snehlatha Elangovan reported in
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1238, Sunita Palita v. Panchami
Stone Quarry reported in 2022 SC OnLine SCC 945, K.K.
Ahuja v. V.K. Vora reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48,
National Small-Scale Industries Corporation v.
Harmeet Singh (2010) 3 SCC 330, Pooja Ravinder
Devidsani v. State of Maharashtra and another
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1, Surinder Singh Deswal
and Ors. v. Virendra Gandhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC
341, CESC Ltd and Others Vs. Subhash Chandra
Bose and Others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 441,
Yudhistir v. Ashok Kumar reported in (1987) 1 SCC 204,
Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa reported in
(1996) 5 SCC 1, Regina v. Cuthbertson and Ors.
Pooja Ravinder Devidasani vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 December, 2014
reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1598, S.P. Mani and
Mohan Dairy v. Snehlatha Elangovan reported in
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1238, Sunita Palita v. Panchami
Stone Quarry reported in 2022 SC OnLine SCC 945, K.K.
Ahuja v. V.K. Vora reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48,
National Small-Scale Industries Corporation v.
Harmeet Singh (2010) 3 SCC 330, Pooja Ravinder
Devidsani v. State of Maharashtra and another
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1, Surinder Singh Deswal
and Ors. v. Virendra Gandhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC
341, CESC Ltd and Others Vs. Subhash Chandra
Bose and Others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 441,
Yudhistir v. Ashok Kumar reported in (1987) 1 SCC 204,
Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa reported in
(1996) 5 SCC 1, Regina v. Cuthbertson and Ors.
Bijaya Kumar Agarwala Etc vs State Of Orissa on 1 August, 1996
reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1598, S.P. Mani and
Mohan Dairy v. Snehlatha Elangovan reported in
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1238, Sunita Palita v. Panchami
Stone Quarry reported in 2022 SC OnLine SCC 945, K.K.
Ahuja v. V.K. Vora reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48,
National Small-Scale Industries Corporation v.
Harmeet Singh (2010) 3 SCC 330, Pooja Ravinder
Devidsani v. State of Maharashtra and another
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1, Surinder Singh Deswal
and Ors. v. Virendra Gandhi reported in (2019) 11 SCC
341, CESC Ltd and Others Vs. Subhash Chandra
Bose and Others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 441,
Yudhistir v. Ashok Kumar reported in (1987) 1 SCC 204,
Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa reported in
(1996) 5 SCC 1, Regina v. Cuthbertson and Ors.