Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Anita Malhotra vs Apparel Export Promotion Counl.& Anr on 8 November, 2011
In view of law laid down in Anita Malhotra's case
(Supra), since petitioner resigned before issuance of cheques in
question and before presentation of the same for encashment,
summoning order of petitioner vide impugned orders can not be
sustained and are liable to be set aside.
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
J.N. Bhatia And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 20 December, 2006
11. Petitioner relied upon law laid down in case titled as J.N.
Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 2007 III AD (Delhi) 142
wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as below:
"It can therefore, be safely concluded that the view, which is
now accepted by the Supreme Court, is that mere repetition of
phraseology contained in Section 141 of the NI Act i.e. "the
accused is incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the
day to day affairs of the company" may not be sufficient and
something more is to be alleged to show as to how he was so
responsible."
The Companies Act, 1956
N.K. Wahi vs Shekhar Singh And Ors on 9 March, 2007
12. Petitioner further relied on judgment of "N.K. Wahi Vs.
Shekhar Singh & Ors. 2007 (1) JCC (NI) 112" wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court held as below:
"To launch a prosecution, therefore, against the alleged
Directors there must be a specific allegation in the complaint
as to the part played by them in the transaction. There should
be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors
are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of
the company. The description should be clear. It is true that
precise words from the provisions of the Act need not be
reproduced and the Court can always come to a conclusion in
facts of each case. But still in the absence of any averment or
specific evidence the net result would be that complaint would
not be entertainable."