Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.67 seconds)Section 11B in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
The Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand on 16 December, 1997
In the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v.
Keshvanand it has been held by this Court that the
complainant has to be a corporeal person who is
capable of making a physical appearance in the court.
It has been held that if a complaint is made in the
name of an incorporeal person (like a company or
corporation) it is necessary that a natural person
represents such juristic person in the court. It is held
that the court looks upon the natural person to be the
complainant for all practical purposes. It is held that
when the complainant is a body corporate it is the de
jure complainant, and it must necessarily associate a
human being as de facto complainant to represent the
former in court proceedings. It has further been held
that no Magistrate shall insist that the particular person
, whose statement was taken on oath at the first
instance, alone can continue to represent the company
till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that
there may be occasions when different persons can
represent the company. It has been held that it is open
to the de jure complainant company to seek permission
of the court for sending any other person to represent
the company in the court. Thus, even presuming, that
initially there was no authority, still the company can,
at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage
the company can send a person who is competent to
represent the company. The complaints could thus not
have been quashed on this ground."