Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (3.30 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I on 7 December, 1979
It is well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. And Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objections raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable.
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & Ors vs Uttam & Another on 11 February, 1999
It is well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. And Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objections raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable.
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
It is well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. And Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objections raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable.
Section 11 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
23. This Court has perused all the complaints. Its clearly mentioned in all the complaints that Accused No. 1 is Company, Accused No. 2 is its Chairman, Accused No. 3 is its Managing Director and Accused No. 4 is its Joint Managing Director. This Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Thakkar that except in cause title nowhere the accused No. 2 to 4 are referred to with their specific role or responsibility in the complaints or verifications. The Revision Court has also erred in not noticing that in all the complaints the complainants have made specific averments sufficient to invoke applicability of Section 141 of the N.I. Act. The Apex Court has laid down parameters for invoking Section 141 against persons and officials of the Company guilty of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Apex Court in case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. reported in (2005) 8 SCC pg. 89 has observed in paragraph 19 of the judgment as under:
M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Ors on 27 August, 2001
Para.8: The ;interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decised by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decisions is this; if the contention of the petitioner who moved the superior Court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If it would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage.
Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 29 July, 1977
It is well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. And Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objections raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable.