Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Vijay Kumar Dange vs Saroj Thakur And Another on 31 July, 2015
involved. No offence is alleged to have been committed by the
partnership firm and therefore, the enunciation of law as relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Vijay Kumar Dange case
(supra) is totally misplaced.
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 8 May, 2008
59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the
irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution
under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as
an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders
can only be brought in the dragnet 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 which is a three-Judge Bench
decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheorathan Agarwal
does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is
herby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is overruled
with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in
Modi Distillery has to be treated to be restricted to its own
facts as has been explained by us hereinabove."
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 27 April, 2012
9. The company can have criminal liability fastened on it,
and if a group of persons that guide the business of the
companies have the criminal intent, that would be imputed
to the body corporate. On a reference to the larger Bench in
Aneeta Hada versus Godfather Travels and Tours, (P) Ltd.,
(2012) 5 SCC 661, three judges of the Supreme Court
examined this preposition and observed that Section 141 of
the Act clearly stipulates that when a person which is a
company commits an offence, then certain categories of
persons in charge as well as the company would be
deemed to be liable for the offences under Section 138.
Anil Gupta vs Star India Pvt.Ltd.& Anr on 7 July, 2014
7. Similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Anil Gupta Vs. Star India Private Limited and another (2014) 10
SCC 373, wherein the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Aneeta Hada's case supra was reiterated.
Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Anu Mehta & Ors on 17 October, 2014
8. Yet again a similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court recently in Gunmala Sales Private Limited Vs. Anu Mehta
and others (2015) 1 SCC 103, wherein again the ratio, as laid
down in Aneeta Hada's case supra was followed.
Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 11 December, 1986
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State
of Gujarat and others (1987) 1 SCC 213 has held that the ratio of any
rt
decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
In Krishena Kumar v. Union of India and others (1990)
4 SCC 207, the Constitution Bench, while dealing with the concept of
.