Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Ramesh Inder Singh And Anr. vs Shri M.S. Gill, Assistant Collector Of ... on 18 October, 1983 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982

The only allegation in the complaint is that Raghbir Singh, Manager of the Company has not given any explanation as to how 80 M.T. of steel ingots were not there in the premises of the company and as to how 142.507 M.T. of steel ingots were in excess in the stock of Punjab Steel Rolling Mills, which is totally owned by the Company. If at all the allegation is only against Raghbir Singh, Manager and he being the Manager could be held responsible for any lapse Under Section 9 of the Excise Act. But in the absence of any specific allegations against the Directors of the Company, the petitioners being the Directors could not be held liable. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation fo Delhi, v. Ram Kishan Rogtagi and Ors., 1983 S.C.C. (Cri.) 115, held asunder: | "From the very nature of duties of the Manager of the Company, it is manifest that he must be in the knowledge about the affairs of the sale and manufacture of the disputed sample. Therefore, a case was clearly made out against him and he was vicariously liable for the offence, vicarious liability being an incident of an offence under the Act. But as regards the Directors, there was no evidence to show, apart from the presumption drawn by the complainant, that there is any act committed by the Directors from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that they could also be vicariously liable. In these circumstances, therefore, no case against the Directors had been made out ex facie on the allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings against them were rightly quashed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 852 - S M Ali - Full Document
1