Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors on 13 August, 2008
12) The mandate of Section 141, as interpreted in Harm eet Singh Paintal,
(supra), is that only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the
conduct of the business of the company at the time of commission of an offence will
be liable for criminal action. The liability arises from being in charge of and
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time
when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a
designation or office in a company.
Miss Pooja Rao Shinde vs B.M.Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam & Ors. on 1 April, 2017
9) A similar view was re-iterated in the case of Pooja R avinderDevidasani vs
State of M aharashtra and another, (2014) 16 SCC 1.
Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs Sangita Rane on 10 February, 2015
6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cases of Pooja
R avinderDevidasani vs State of M aharashtra and another, (2014) 16 SCC
1,Sharad K um ar Sanghi vs SangitaR ane, (2015) 12 SCC 781 and National
Sm all Industries Corporation Ltd vs Harm eet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC
330 in order to buttress his case.
1