Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 8 May, 2008
4. At the hearing, while learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition and placed reliance on Aneeta Hada Vs.
Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited1 in support of his contention,
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that when the authorized
signatory is impleaded as accused, it is sufficient to proceed against the drawer
of the cheques and therefore requested to dismiss the petition.
1
(2012) 5 SCC 661
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Anil Hada vs Indian Acrylic Limited on 26 November, 1999
In the above judgment, the
Full Bench overruled its earlier judgment in Anil Hada Vs. Indian Acrylic
Limited2 to the extent that failure to implead company as accused is not a
ground to quash proceedings. In view of the above, the principle laid down in
Aneeta Hada (1st supra) alone is applicable to the present facts of the case. By
applying the principle laid down in Aneeta Hada (1st supra), the defect in the
complaint i.e. failure to implead the company i.e. NKTPL is not a curable
irregularity under Section 465 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the proceedings against the
petitioner, who is not the drawer, cannot be allowed to continue and thereby the
proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed by exercising power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and are accordingly quashed.
Section 7 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1