Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Himanshu vs B. Shivamurthy on 17 January, 2019
7. Recently, in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy & Ors.8, the
Supreme Court has held as under:-
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Appropriation (No. 3) Act, 2001
P. Mohanraj vs M/S. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on 1 March, 2021
8. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner has
not approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as the initiation of
proceedings under IBC against the company have not been disclosed. He
further submits that the company was admitted into CIRP on 04.03.2021.
The said factum was later brought to the notice of the learned Judicial
Magistrate by the Legal Officer of the company on 27.03.2021. While
placing reliance on P. Mohanraj & Others v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private
This is a digitally signed order.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel on 11 October, 2022
In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision in
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and others,
reported as AIR 2022 SC 4961.
S.R.Sukumar vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July, 2015
Learned counsel further refers to the reply tendered by the petitioner
at the stage of framing of notice, wherein he answered that he did not
receive any notice, and that the same might have been received at the office
address of the company. On the aspect of placing on record an amended
memo of parties after the filing of the complaint, it was contended that the
same does not prejudice the accused, and in this context, reference is made
to the decision in S. R. Sukumar vs S. Sunaad Raghuram, reported as 2015
AIR SCW 4066.
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
"4. Firstly, the law as regards to the liability of a Director
for an offence under Section 138 NI Act committed by a
company is no longer res integra. Starting from the decision in
S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr.1 upto the
recent decision of Supreme Court in Susela Padmawathy Amma
v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.2 it has been observed that while a Director
holds special/unique position in a company, having authority to
take decisions, however, the mere nomenclature or mention of
an individual as Director cannot itself bring him/her into the
fold of Section 138 by assistance of Section 141 NI Act, the
latter of which relates to vicarious liability of a Director. As
observed in a catena of judgements, it is only those Directors
who were in-charge of the day-to-day affairs and responsible
for the conduct of the business of the company, can be held
liable for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. The word 'in-
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 8 May, 2008
5. Secondly, the issue whether a company needs to be
impleaded as an accused or not has been settled by catena of
decisions beginning with Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels &
Tours Pvt. Ltd.4, wherein it has been held: -