Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.29 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 405 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
18. On behalf of the signatories of the cheques
dishonoured it was argued that the dishonour had taken
place after they had resigned from their positions and that
the failure of the company to honour the commitment
implicit in the cheques cannot be construed an act of
dishonesty on the part of the signatories of the cheques. We
do not think so. Just because the authorised signatories of
the cheques have taken a different line of defence than the
one taken by by the company does not in our view justify
quashing of the proceedings against them. The decisions of
this Court in National Small Industries Corporation
Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr. (2010) 3 SCC
330 and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla &
Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89 render the authorised signatory
liable to be prosecuted along with the company.
Rajesh Bajaj vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 2000
Time and again this Court has been pointing out
that quashing of FIR or a complaint in exercise of
the inherent powers of the High Court should be
limited to very extreme exceptions (vide State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajesh Bajaj v. State
NCT of Delhi).
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr on 15 February, 2010
We have carefully gone through the
said decision which relies upon the decision of this
Court in Electronics Trade & Technology Development
Corporation Ltd. (supra).