Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)Section 65 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 229 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 237 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Tolaram Relumal And Another vs The State Of Bombay on 13 May, 1954
"Tolaram Relumal and Anr. vs. State of Bombay" laid down:-
Aparna A.Shah vs M/S Sheth Developers P.Ltd.& Anr on 1 July, 2013
9. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of expression
used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of legislature. Even
the literal construction of Section 65 does not contemplates that penalty can
be imposed on any person other than one who has fraudulently or
maliciously initiated the proceedings. It is well settled that penal statute are
to be strictly construed. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "(2013) 8 SCC 71- Aparna A. Shah vs. Sheth
Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." where in reference to Section 138 of the NIA
Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasion to consider the construction of
penal provision. In paragraphs 15 & 16, following was laid down:-
S.K. Alagh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 15 February, 2008
In S.K. Alagh v. State of U.P. [(2008) 5 SCC 662 :
Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya on 13 September, 2006
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 686] this Court held: (SCC p. 667,
para 19)
"19. ... If and when a statute contemplates
creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically
therefor. In absence of any provision laid down under
the statute, a Director of a company or an employee
cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence
committed by the company itself. (See Sabitha
Ramamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya [(2006)