Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)

Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 27 April, 2012

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company and the Company is not arrayed as an accused. The Company not being arrayed as one of the accused and only the Director of the Company being arrayed, the complaint cannot be maintainable and the proceedings cannot be continued in the light of the law laid down by the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of ANEETA HADA v. GODFATHER TRAVELS AND TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED - (2012) 5 SCC 661. Therefore, the complaint against the petitioner who is the Director of the Company without arraigning the Company as a party was not even maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 350 - D Misra - Full Document

Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018

KUMAR AND OTHERS v. K.S. HARISHA AND ANOTHER (Crl.P.No.2619 of 2014 decided on 31st January 2019) which concerned offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the IPC against several accused who were teachers of Mother Theresa School who had taken the children studying 3rd, 4th and 5th standards for a school picnic at Residency Holiday Resort and the students got drowned in the swimming pool, a complaint was registered against the owner or the management, the Head Master as well as the Manager of Residency Holiday Resort. The teachers of the school who had been arrayed as accused had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.2619 of 2014 for offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. This Court after considering the purport of Section 304-A of IPC which deals with causing death by negligence has held as follows:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4774 - M M Shrivastava - Full Document
1   2 Next