Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 138 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 290 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand on 16 December, 1997
In the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand it has been held by this Court that the complainant has to be a corporeal person who is capable of making a physical appearance in the court. It has been held that if a complaint is made in the name of an incorporeal person (like a company or corporation) it is necessary that a natural person represents such juristic person in the court. It is held that the court looks upon the natural person to be the complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that when the complainant is a body corporate it is the de jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a human being as de facto complainant to represent the former in court proceedings. It has further been held that no Magistrate shall insist that the particular person, whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the dejure complainant company to seek permission of the court for sending any other person to represent the company in the court. Thus even presuming, that initially there was no authority, still the company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaints could thus not have been quashed on this ground.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others on 30 September, 1983
This Court has, as far back as, in the case of Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar held that it is clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance. It has been held that no court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint. It has been held that if any special statute prescribes offences and makes any special provision for taking cognizance of such offences under the statute, then the complainant requesting the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence must satisfy the eligibility criterion prescribed by the statute. In the present case, the only eligibility criteria prescribed by Section 142 is that the complaint must be by the payee or the holder in due course This criteria is satisfied as the complaint is in the name and on behalf of the appellant company.