Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (3.14 seconds)Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
N. Harihara Krishnan vs J. Thomas on 30 August, 2017
Thomas [N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas, (2018)
13 SCC 663 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 440 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Cri) 826] . Adverting to the ingredients of Section
138, the Court observed as follows:
Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs Vijay D Savli on 6 July, 2015
17. The judgment titled as Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh v.
Vijay D. Salvi, AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2579 cited by the Ld. Counsel
for the respondent/ complainant is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In the said case, the accused, who was
the Director of a company had issued a cheque drawn on his personal
account in discharge of the liability of the company.
Himanshu vs B. Shivamurthy on 17 January, 2019
In this respect it is pertinent to refer to the judgment titled as
Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy, reported as (2019) 3 SCC 797 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
M/S. H G Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Kumar Saxena on 2 May, 2022
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/ accused company M/s Shine
Research and Services Pvt. Limited has primarily argued that no demand
notice was issued to the petitioner/ accused company and the demand
notice was issued only to co-accused Sanjeev Sharma and that too in his
individual capacity and not as the Director of the petitioner/ accused
company and in the absence of the statutory demand notice the
complaint is not maintainable against the petitioner/ accused company.
Accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside of the summoning order
dated 23.10.2021 and the notice framed under section 251 Cr.P.C. on
12.10.2023. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/ accused company has placed
reliance upon the judgment titled as M/s H.G Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd v.
Rajiv Kumar Saxena passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl.
M.C No. 1965/2022.
Charanjit Pal Jindal vs M/S. L.N. Metalics on 24 February, 2015
..........8. The judgment of the three-Judge Bench has
since been followed by a two-Judge Bench of this
Court in Charanjit Pal Jindal v. L.N.
Metalics [Charanjit Pal Jindal v. L.N. Metalics, (2015)
15 SCC 768 : (2016) 3 SCC (Civ) 447 : (2016) 3 SCC
(Cri) 400].
Anil Gupta vs Star India Pvt.Ltd.& Anr on 7 July, 2014
In this respect reference may be made to the judgment titled
as Anil Gupta v. Star India (P) Ltd., reported as (2014) 10 SCC 373
wherein it has been held:
Anil Hada vs Indian Acrylic Limited on 26 November, 1999
Thereby, the Company
being not a party to the proceedings under Section
138 read with Section 141 of the Act and in view of
the fact that part of the judgment referred to by the
High Court in Anil Hada [Anil Hada v. Indian
Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 174]
has been overruled by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Aneeta Hada [Aneeta Hada v. Godfather
Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661 :