Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
K.V.Sridhar vs N.Krishnasamy on 7 September, 2018 cites

M/S Goa Shipyard Ltd vs Babu Thomas on 30 May, 2007

7.On perusal of the complaint, it has been filed by one S.Palanivel, S/o.S.P.Subbiah Pillai, power of attorney of one Mr.N.Krishnasamy, S/o.Nallamuthu Gounder representing the complany viz., Sri Saravana Spinning Mills Private Limited, Dindigul. The first document annexed along with the complaint viz., the Board resolution shows that the Board of Directors passed resolution thereby delegates its power to its Managing Director Mr.N.Krishnasamy, to file criminal and civil cases on behalf of the complainant company. The other documents annexed with the complaint is that his power of attorney, in which, the said N.Krishnasamy, Managing Director of the complainant company sub delegated his power to Mr.Palanivel, Accounts Manager of the company to take action under criminal and civil law on behalf of the company. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the unreported judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1389 of 2003 vide judgment dated 24.03.2008 ? M/s.J.K.Industries Ltd., Vs. Babu, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - H K Sema - Full Document

S.Rajarathinavel vs Visalatchi Enterprises on 5 July, 2013

9.The alleged cheque was issued towards the payment of a sum of Rs.7,73,280/- on behalf of the firm S.S.Agency in favour of the complainant company on 21.10.2009. Therefore, at the time of purchasing the goods from the complainant company and also at the time of issuance of cheque, the accused were not partners of the S.S.Agency partnership firm. Further, it also reveals from the reply notice issued by the first accused that he categorically denied the issance of cheque, signature of the cheque and the cheque was also not belong to the first accused account. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the accused were not partners of the said firm and as such, they are not liable to be prosecuted on behalf of the paretnership firm of S.S.Agency. In this regard, the learned counsel apeparing for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of this Court reported in (2014) 1 MLJ (Crl) 180 ? S.Rajarathinavel V. Visalatchi Enterprises, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - T Mathivanan - Full Document
1   2 Next