Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.38 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 204 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sunil Kumar Chhaperia vs Dakka Eshwaraiah And Anr. on 22 March, 2001
In the
said case, the Court has referred to the decisions in Secunderabad
Health Care Ltd. v. Secunderabad Hospitals (P) Ltd. [1999 (96)
Comp Case 106], V. Sudheer Reddy v. State of A.P.[2000 (107)
Comp Case 107], R. Kanan v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. [2003
(115) Comp Case 321], Lok Housing ad Constructions Ltd. v.
Raghupati Leasing and Finance Ltd [2003 (115) Comp Case 957],
Sunil Kumar Chhaparia v. Dakka Eshwaraiah [2002 (108) Comp
Case 687], State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [1998 (5) SCC
343], K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd.
State Of Haryana vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors on 30 April, 1998
In the
said case, the Court has referred to the decisions in Secunderabad
Health Care Ltd. v. Secunderabad Hospitals (P) Ltd. [1999 (96)
Comp Case 106], V. Sudheer Reddy v. State of A.P.[2000 (107)
Comp Case 107], R. Kanan v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. [2003
(115) Comp Case 321], Lok Housing ad Constructions Ltd. v.
Raghupati Leasing and Finance Ltd [2003 (115) Comp Case 957],
Sunil Kumar Chhaparia v. Dakka Eshwaraiah [2002 (108) Comp
Case 687], State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [1998 (5) SCC
343], K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd.
K.P.G. Nair vs Jindal Menthol India Ltd. on 12 September, 2000
26 In A.K. Singhania (supra), after referring to the previous
judgments, the Court found that it was difficult to infer that there was
any averment that the two accused persons who had come to this
Court, were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business
of the Company at the time the offence was committed. The allegation
in the complaints in sum and substance was that business and
financial affairs of the Company used to be decided, organized and
administered by accused persons along with other Directors.
Smt. Katta Sujatha vs Fertilizers & Chem. Travancore Ltd. And ... on 23 August, 2002
[2001 (10) SCC
218], Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
[2002 (7) SCC 655] and eventually expressed thus:
Page 10 of 20
HC-NIC Page 10 of 20 Created On Wed Aug 16 06:06:01 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/32759/2016 ORDER
"A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened
vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal
accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in
criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled
out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable.
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
In the said case, the Court has
referred to the decision rendered in S.M.S. Pharma I (supra) and,
thereafter, taken note of the averments made in the complaint. Be it
noted, in the said case it had been averred in the complaint petition
that the accused Nos. 2 to 9 were Directors and were in day to day
management of the accused company and in that context the Court
has opined as follows:
Page 15 of 20
HC-NIC Page 15 of 20 Created On Wed Aug 16 06:06:01 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/32759/2016 ORDER
"Upon perusal of the complaint, we find that an averment has been
made to the effect that Accused Nos.3 to 10 were in fact, incharge of
the daytoday business of Accused No.1company."