Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.36 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors on 30 April, 1998
The Supreme Court in the said judgment noticed that except a bald statement that the accused were directors of the manufacturing company, there was no other allegation to indicate that even at that time they were in charge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. In the circumstances, the prosecution against them was quashed.
Avon Industries Ltd. vs Integrated Finance Company Ltd. on 30 January, 2001
22. In my considered opinion, the contention of the respondent that every managing director, joint managing director and executive director are vicariously liable for the commission of the offence by the company under Section 138 of the Act, is not correct. The judgment in Avon Industries Ltd.'s case [2001] 105 Comp Cas 259 ; [2001] 1 ALD (Crl.) 461 (AP) is not an authority for any such proposition as is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the first respondent-complainant. This court having perused the complaint in the said case came to the conclusion that the managing director, joint managing director and executive director of the accused-company therein were in charge of and responsible for the business of the accused-company and the same could be discernible from the averments made in the complaint, itself, though there were no specific averments in the petition against them. In the light of the averments made in the said complaint, the court observed that the managing director, joint managing director and executive director of the accused-company therein were responsible for the business of the company.
Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 26 September, 2001
In Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. v. State [2000] 2 ALD (Crl.) 701 (AP) ; [2002] 111 Comp Cas 786 it is held by this court (page 790 and 792 of Comp Cas) :
Secunderabad Health Care vs Secunderabad Hospitals on 21 July, 1998
In Secunderabad Health Care Ltd. v. Secunderabad Hospitals Pvt. Ltd, , this court while interpreting Sections 138 and 141 of the Act held that (page 112 of Comp Cas) :
Smt. K. Janaki Manoharan And Anr. vs Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited And Anr. on 24 July, 2000
In Smt. K. Janaki Manoharan v. Gayatri Sugar Complex Ltd. [2000] 2 ALT (Crl.) 278 (AP) ; [2002] 108 Comp Cas 899 this court further elaborated the same principle and held (page 904) :