Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.16 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Sham Sundar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 21 August, 1989
In the case of Sham Sunder and Others v State of Haryana, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with a case in which a complaint was lodged against the company, its Directors and Managers. In those circumstances their Lordships have held that no clear allegation against the Manager and Directors that they were responsible for conduct of business of disputed sample was made. Under the circumstances, it was held that the proceedings could be quashed against the Directors but not against the Manager. In that case it was observed:
The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
R. Banerjee And Ors vs H.D. Dubey And Ors on 13 March, 1992
10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. Banerjee and Others v H.D. Dubey and Others, held while discussing the prosecution of Directors under Section 17(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act that where the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute any offence, no process can be issued against the co-accused other than the Company and the nominated person and the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973, to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence against such co-accused.