Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Aravinda Parimala Works And Ors. vs The Enforcement Officer (Pf), Mysore ... on 26 July, 2004 cites

Smt. Katta Sujatha vs Fertilizers & Chem. Travancore Ltd. And ... on 23 August, 2002

6. However, it may be noted that in the said case before the Supreme Court, there was no averment in the complaint that the petitioner therein was in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm or, that the offence was committed with her consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on her part. But, in the case on hand, not only there is averment in the complaint that all the said persons are in-charge of and responsible to the establishment for the conduct of its business, there is a record/Form 5-A, which shows them as the persons in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the first accused. It is an undisputed document of the first accused showing them as persons in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the first accused establishment. That apart, what is found in Form No. 5A referred to above, is stated in the petitions filed before this Court. So, it cannot be said now that they were/ are not in charge of or and responsible for, the conduct of the business of the first accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 167 - Full Document

Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 6 May, 1992

11. That is why the petitioners rely on the payments made subsequently i.e. after complaints were filed since, according to them, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adoni Cotton Mills Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1996(2) LLJ 739), the proceedings cannot continue and require to be quashed in such cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 39 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

R.Dhandayuthapani vs C.R.Kaleel on 29 August, 2003

16. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Dhandayuthapani v. C. R. Kaleel (2003(103) FJR 856). But therein, the proceedings had been quashed on the ground of limitation and on facts, when found that the petitioner-accused therein an Engineer by profession, having his office at Erode, could not have been in overall charge of accused No. 1- Company situated at Pethappampatti and had ceased to be a Director of the Company as early as on 27-21997 according to Form No. 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document

Bhagirath Kanoria & Ors. Etc vs State Of M.P. & Ors. Etc on 24 August, 1984

In this connection, reference can also be had to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M. P., . Further, in the present matters, payment of the Contributions fallen in arrears had been made in the year 2000 or 2001 i.e., after complaints were filed in the year 1999 and as such, it cannot be said that the complaints filed were barred by time. Thus, none of the grounds urged helps the petitioners in any way nor make out a case requiring this Court to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. No other point has been urged nor raised for consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 351 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1