Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.66 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
S. P. Bhatnagar Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 January, 1979
In this regard, it is to be noted that the issue as regards the proper stage for determination of such person's vicarious liability was referred to a larger Bench of Supreme Court in P. Rajanathiram v. State of Maharashtra, , as already discussed above for resolving of alleged conflict between Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kisan Rastogi's case and Modi Distillery's, case and it is held by the larger Bench that it was not necessary to advert to that question at this stage and the proper stage would be after pre-charge evidence for proving of charge. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
G. Sagar Suri And Anr vs State Of Up. And Ors on 28 January, 2000
The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has not disputed the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court as above. He has contended that the facts of the above referred case are altogether different from the facts of the present case and as such the above case is of no avail to the petitioners. In this regard, it is to be noted that in the above referred case criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque were already initiated against the accused, however, separate first information report under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code was also filed subsequently in respect of the same transaction against the accused together with some other relatives of the accused and none of the respondents (complainants) has been able to explain as to why offence under section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code was not added in complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and why resort could be had to filing separate first information report and, therefore, it is held that there would be no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants (accused) under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and in his doing so it is clearly abuse of process of Court and the prosecution against the appellants/accused for those offences is liable to be quashed and the prosecution was accordingly quashed.