Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.33 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
With great respect, we see no warrant for assuming such a position in the context of the binding ratio in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and in view of the position of the Directors in a company as explained above.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Saroj Kumar Poddar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 16 January, 2007
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that in Saroj Kumar Poddar case (supra), this Court had found the complaint unsustainable only for the reason that there was no specific averment that at the time of issuance of the cheque that was dishonoured, the persons named in the complaint were in charge of the affairs of the company.
Rajesh Bajaj vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 2000
In Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. , two learned judges of this Court stated:
M/S. Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. vs A. Chinnaswami on 12 March, 1999
In M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. v. A Chinnaswami , this Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was not liable to be quashed on the ground that the notice as contemplated by Section 138 of the Act was addressed to the Director of the Company at its office address and not to the Company itself.
Rajneesh Aggarwal vs Amit J. Bhalla on 4 January, 2000
The view was reiterated in Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit J. Bhalla . These decisions indicate that too technical an approach on the sufficiency of notice and the contents of the complaint is not warranted in the context of the purpose sought to be achieved by the introduction of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act.