cites: 436310 doctypes: judgments

S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005

With great respect, we see no warrant for assuming such a position in the context of the binding ratio in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and in view of the position of the Directors in a company as explained above.

Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 1836 - A Kumar - Full Document

Saroj Kumar Poddar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 16 January, 2007

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that in Saroj Kumar Poddar case (supra), this Court had found the complaint unsustainable only for the reason that there was no specific averment that at the time of issuance of the cheque that was dishonoured, the persons named in the complaint were in charge of the affairs of the company.

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 320 - S B Sinha - Full Document

J.N. Bhatia And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 20 December, 2006

5. J.N.Bhatia and Ors. v. State and Anr. 139 (2007) DLT 361

Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 35 - A K Sikri - Full Document

N.K. Wahi vs Shekhar Singh And Ors on 9 March, 2007

In N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh and Ors.(Supra), it has been laid down that as per Section 141 of the Act, only such person is held liable if at the time when the offence was committed, he was in charge and responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company. Held:

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 364 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya on 13 September, 2006

24. The matter was again considered in Sabitha Ramamurthy and Anr. v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhys and Anr. and Saroj Kumar Poddar v. Sate (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. . It was, inter alia, held as follows:

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 290 - S B Sinha - Full Document

N. Rangachari vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 19 April, 2007

30. So, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in N.Rangachari (supra) when specific averments have been made against the petitioner and since it can be adjudged only during the course of trial whether the present petitioner was in charge of or responsible to the affairs of the company or not, the present petitions are wholly mis-conceived and are not maintainable.

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 194 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 August, 2004

In fact, in an earlier decision in Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , two learned judges of this Court noticed that:

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 327 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Rajesh Bajaj vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 2000

In Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. , two learned judges of this Court stated:

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 412 - Full Document

M/S. Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. vs A. Chinnaswami on 12 March, 1999

In M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. v. A Chinnaswami , this Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was not liable to be quashed on the ground that the notice as contemplated by Section 138 of the Act was addressed to the Director of the Company at its office address and not to the Company itself.

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Rajneesh Aggarwal vs Amit J. Bhalla on 4 January, 2000

The view was reiterated in Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla . These decisions indicate that too technical an approach on the sufficiency of notice and the contents of the complaint is not warranted in the context of the purpose sought to be achieved by the introduction of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 152 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results