Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Manish Aluminium Pvt. Ltd vs Anupam Seals Pvt. Ltd on 7 May, 2024 cites

Anil Hada vs Indian Acrylic Limited on 26 November, 1999

12. During arguments the defense counsel has produced citation reported in 2000 (I) SCC 1 reported judgment held between Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylic Ltd., through which he took shelter and highlighted that without making party to the company on behalf of which accused No.4 has issued disputed cheque under company name Chirag Corporation Ltd. For which the present accused No.4 working as a proprietor and he being sole owner has issued the cheque on behalf of accused No.1 to 3 as a guarantor. But the defense counsel has argued the without making party to the above said Chirag Corporation Ltd the present complaint is not tenable hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint by acquitting the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 371 - Full Document

Simeya Hariramani vs Bank Of Baroda on 17 August, 2018

13. The citation which was produced by the defense counsel has already been overruled through reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex court held between Anitha Hada Vs Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt Ltd. Furthermore, I have gone through the principles discussed in report case of Hon'ble Apex court held between Dilip Hariramani Vs Bank of Baroda in Crl.A.No. 767/2022 dt 9.5.2022 in which Hon;ble Apex court has discussed in detail particularly section 141 of NI Act offences by the companies. In which section 141 (1) read that if the person committing the offence under section 138 of NI Act is a company every person who at the time of offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company , as well as 10 CC.No.18887/2017 the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 62 - Full Document
1