Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.34 seconds)
M/S. Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt ... vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 October, 2020
cites
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 240 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Cbi on 9 January, 2015
"40. It is abundantly clear from the above that
the principle which is laid down is to the effect
that the criminal intent of the "alter ego" of the
company, that is the personal group of persons
that guide the business of the company, would
be imputed to the company/corporation. The
legal proposition that is laid down in the
aforesaid judgment is that if the person or group
of persons who control the affairs of the
company commit an offence with a criminal
intent, their criminality can be imputed to the
company as well as they are "alter ego" of the
company.
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
L. Krishna Reddy vs State By Station House Officer & Ors on 24 October, 2013
(15) (2014) 14 SCC 401, L KRISHNA REDDY vs. STATE by
Station house officer and Others
(16) ILR 2020 KAR 630, VAGGEPPA GURULINGA vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, represented by State Public
Prosecutor
State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004
In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE
OF ORISSA vs. DEBENDRA NATH PADHI, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in
para 16, has summarized the position of law as under:-
Manakshi Bala vs Sudhir Kumar (M.K. Kukherjee, J.) on 10 May, 1994
"20. Reliance placed on behalf of the accused
on some observations made in Minakshi Bala v.
Sudhir Kumar and Others[(1994) 4 SCC 142] to
the effect that in exceptional cases the High
Court can look into only those documents which
are unimpeachable and can be legally translated
into relevant evidence is misplaced for the
purpose of considering the point in issue in
these matters. If para 7 of the judgment where
these observations have been made is read as a
whole, it would be clear that the judgment
instead of supporting the contention sought to
be put forth on behalf of the accused, in fact,
supports the prosecution. Para 7 of the
aforesaid case reads as under:-