Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Transport Corporation Of India Ltd. And ... vs R.M. Gandhi And Ors. on 12 June, 1991 cites

State Of Karnataka vs Pratap Chand & Ors on 11 March, 1981

6. Shri Bhogani next referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, . Though this judgment is also not directly on the point, it does lay down that a person "in charge" of an establishment must mean that the person must be in overall control of the day-to-day business of the establishment. The judgment turns on the peculiar phraseology used in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as to whether a partner of the firm was the person "in charge", and the Supreme Court, on the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the partner was not in overall control of the day-to-day business of the firm and, hence, upheld his acquittal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 152 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Sharadchandra Shripad Marathe vs Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble And Others on 24 July, 1986

In support of his first contention, Shri Bhogani relied on the judgment of our High Court in Sharadchandra Shripad Marathe v. Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble, 1986 Mah LJ 738. In my view, this judgment is not of such assistance since, on the facts before the Court, the question considered was whether one of the Directors, who had joined the company as a Director few days before the excise raid took place on the company and had not participated in any of the earlier; proceedings leading to the conspiracy of evasion of excise duty during the period 1981 to 1984, could be prosecuted for the offence under the Central Excise Act. This Court took the view that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it; would be an abuse of the process of the Court and gross injustice to permit such a Director to be prosecuted, and, in this view of the matter, the proceedings were quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1