Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)
M/S Pooja Bangles & Ors. vs M/S Suman Jewellers on 1 May, 2024 cites

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

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is not maintainable inasmuch as the demand notice was issued in favour of 'M/s Pooja Bengals'. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is, in fact, 'M/s Pooja Bangles'. He submits that the petitioner firm is registered at Delhi, while the notice was issued to another firm at Saharanpur. He submits that if the principal offender, that is, the firm has not been issued a legal notice nor impleaded in the complaint, even its partners cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. He places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. & Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 3392/2024 Page 3 of 6 By:SUNIL Signing Date:04.05.2024 18:29:44 Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 661; Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemical & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 321; Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders (2001) 6 SCC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 350 - D Misra - Full Document

M/S. Rahul Builders vs M/S. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & ... on 2 November, 2007

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is not maintainable inasmuch as the demand notice was issued in favour of 'M/s Pooja Bengals'. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is, in fact, 'M/s Pooja Bangles'. He submits that the petitioner firm is registered at Delhi, while the notice was issued to another firm at Saharanpur. He submits that if the principal offender, that is, the firm has not been issued a legal notice nor impleaded in the complaint, even its partners cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. He places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. & Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 3392/2024 Page 3 of 6 By:SUNIL Signing Date:04.05.2024 18:29:44 Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 661; Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemical & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 321; Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders (2001) 6 SCC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 288 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs M/S.Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. & Ors on 19 January, 2001

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is not maintainable inasmuch as the demand notice was issued in favour of 'M/s Pooja Bengals'. He submits that the petitioner no.1 is, in fact, 'M/s Pooja Bangles'. He submits that the petitioner firm is registered at Delhi, while the notice was issued to another firm at Saharanpur. He submits that if the principal offender, that is, the firm has not been issued a legal notice nor impleaded in the complaint, even its partners cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 of the NI Act. He places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. & Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 3392/2024 Page 3 of 6 By:SUNIL Signing Date:04.05.2024 18:29:44 Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 661; Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemical & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 321; Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders (2001) 6 SCC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 261 - Full Document
1   2 Next