Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 August, 2004
In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Another versus State of
Gujarat & Others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 15 (at para 6) has held that
primary responsibility is on the complainant to make necessary averment in
the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening the
criminal liability, there is no presumption that every partner knows about the
transaction. The obligation of the accused to prove that they were not incharge
of the conduct of the business would arise only when first the complainant
makes necessary averment in the complaint and establishes that fact.
Standard Chartered Bank vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Etc. on 6 April, 2016
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Standard
Chartered Bank versus State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2016) 6
SCC 62 has reiterated that it is necessary to specifically aver in the complaint
that at the time of offence, accused was in charge of, and responsible for the
conduct of the business of the company.
Section 27 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
K.P.G. Nair vs Jindal Menthol India Ltd. on 12 September, 2000
In the
aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon a decision reported in
(2001) 10 SCC 218 [K.P.G. Nair versus Jindal Menthol India Ltd.] where
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that substance of allegation, read as a
whole should answer and fulfill the requirement of ingredients of Section 141
of the Negotiable Instructions Act.
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran versus
Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510 (at
para 24) has held that the principles incorporated under Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act can preferably be imported in a case where a signatory
has dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, further held that if the address is correctly written,
then the notice can be deemed to have been served on the sendee, unless he
proves that the same was not served upon him for which he was not
responsible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that any other
interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as the drawer of the cheque
would resort to the strategy of subterfuge by successfully avoiding notice. It is
necessary to quote paragraph 24 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-