Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.00 seconds)
Raghu Vakkiyal vs Of on 18 April, 2026 cites

Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 27 April, 2012

rt net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [(1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97] which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [(1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada [(2000) 1 SCC 1 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 350 - D Misra - Full Document

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 November, 2020

22. Reliance is also placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 751. In afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no material distinction between Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which makes company as well as nominated person guilty of offences ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:02:56 :::CIS 2026:HHC:12475 19 and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly. In afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of company, nominated .
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 38 - H Gupta - Full Document

A.K. Roy & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 29 September, 1986

prosecution of the petitioner in the case at hand was given by Chief Medical Officer, Una, which is bad in law. Section 42 of the FSS Act clearly mandates that sanction to prosecute has to be obtained from Commissioner of Food Safety. In the present case there is no consent to of prosecute by Commissioner of Food Safety, rather Chief Medical Officer who has accorded sanction, was not authorised to do so, as a result rt thereof, complaint having been filed without mandatory sanction is otherwise liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Roy and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 326, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that Food (Health) Authority is not competent to sub-
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 151 - A P Sen - Full Document

Prashant Bharti vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 January, 2013

29. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 393 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Rajiv Thapar & Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

29. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 781 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) Department ... on 15 November, 2018

29. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 435 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1