Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.78 seconds)Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Cbi on 9 January, 2015
"21. By applying the ratio laid down by this Court in
Sunil Bharti Mittal [Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015)
4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 687] it is clear that
an individual either as a Director or a Managing
Director or Chairman of the company can be made an
accused, along with the company, only if there is
sufficient material to prove his active role coupled
with the criminal intent. Further the criminal intent
29/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:54 am )
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1057 of 2025
alleged must have direct nexus with the accused.
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 was
pleased to lay down the following principles governing discharge and
framing of charges:
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 has held as
under:-
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 27 April, 2012
In
Aneeta Hada [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels &
Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Civ) 350 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 241] , the Court noted
that if a group of persons that guide the business of
the company have the criminal intent, that would be
imputed to the body corporate and it is in this
backdrop, Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act has to be understood. Such a position is,
therefore, because of statutory intendment making it a
deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of "alter
26/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:54 am )
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1057 of 2025
ego", was applied only in one direction, namely,
where a group of persons that guide the business had
criminal intent, that is to be imputed to the body
corporate and not the vice versa. Otherwise, there has
to be a specific act attributed to the Director or any
other person allegedly in control and management of
the company, to the effect that such a person was
responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of
the company."