Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.44 seconds)Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr vs M/S. National Panasonic India Ltd on 12 December, 2008
It
is not out of place to mention here that the judgment
CRM M 14752 of 2009 7
in K.Bhaskaran's case (supra) still holds the field
despite a little variance in one of the five
circumstances in the recent judgment by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harman Electronics
Private Limited and another Vs National
Panasonic India Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC
720, in which it was held that the single factor of
issuance of notice under Section 138 (b) of the Act
will not ipso facto tantamount to conferring a
jurisdiction on the Courts of the area from where
only notice has been issued.
M/S Bharat Trading Company And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 November, 2010
He has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in 'Goenka
Tradelinks Pvt. Limited v. Indiabulls Financial Services Limited' (CRM
M 34763 of 2012, decided on 22.05.2013), Apex Health Care Private
Limited and others v. M/s Alchemist Hospitals Limited, 2012(5) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 694 and 'M/s Bharat Trading Company and others v. State of
CRM M 14752 of 2009 4
Haryana and another', 2012(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 154, wherein, the
question of conducting an inquiry in proceedings under Section 138 of the
1881 Act, has been dealt in detail and held that the provisions of Section
202 of the Code have no applicability to a complaint under Section 138 of
the 1881 Act, as the offence is non-cognizable.
Rallis India Ltd vs Poduru Vidya Bhusan & Ors on 13 April, 2011
A similar issue came up before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Rallies India Limited's case (supra). In the said case, the following plea
was raised by the appellant:-
Amit Ahuja S/O Late Sh. Kamlesh Chander ... vs Gian Parkash Bhambri Son Of Sh. Chander on 6 May, 2010
The learned Judge in Amit Ahuja's case
(supra) tried to distinguish the decision in Gurmit Kaur's case (supra) with
observations that in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court 'Ravulu
Subha Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras' 1956 (SC) 604 relied
in Gurmit Kaur's case (supra), no such question fell for decision before the
Apex Court as to whether the accused could file a petition under Section 482
of the Code for quashing criminal proceedings through an attorney.
S.K. Bhowmik vs S.K. Arora And Anr. on 19 September, 2007
It is held that in the light of the judgment of
K.Bhaskaran's case (supra), the ratio of the
judgment of S.K. Bhowmik's case (supra) is not
applicable in the complaint under Section 138 of
the Act and the summoning order in complaint
under Section 138 of the Act cannot be questioned
solely on the ground of violation of provisions of
section 202 Cr.P.C."
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment, after
making a reference to a three Judge decision of the Court in 'S.M.S.
Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Neeta Bhalla and another', 2005(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 141, wherein the specific averment of vicarious liability is
mandated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Court held that the specific
averment contained in the form mentioned in para 4 hereinabove, amounts
to compliance.
Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 10 August, 2004
In 'Monaben Ketanbhai Shah and another v. State of Gujarat
and others', 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 800, a similar question in regard to
liability of a partner of a firm for offence under Section 138 of the 1881 Act,
was considered and it was held as under:-