Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (5.05 seconds)Simeya Hariramani vs Bank Of Baroda on 17 August, 2018
5. It is stated to invoke vicarious liability, the partnership firm ought to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRADEEP SHARMA
Signing Date:01.09.2022 14:44
have been made a party in the complaint. Reference is made to Dilip
Hariramani vs. Bank of Baroda in CRL.A.767/2022 wherein vide order
dated 09.05.2022 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs Sangita Rane on 10 February, 2015
"14. The provisions of Section 141 impose vicarious liability by deeming
fiction which presupposes and requires the commission of the offence by the
company or firm. Therefore, unless the company or firm has committed the
offence as a principal accused, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) or
(2) would not be liable and convicted as vicariously liable. Section 141 of
the NI Act extends vicarious criminal liability to officers associated with the
company or firm when one of the twin requirements of Section 141 has been
satisfied, which person(s) then, by deeming fiction, s made vicariously liable
and punished. However, such vicarious liability arises only when the
company or firm commits the offence as the primary offender. This view has
been subsequently followed in Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane,
Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and Another, and Hindustan Unilever Limited
v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Himanshu vs B. Shivamurthy on 17 January, 2019
"14. The provisions of Section 141 impose vicarious liability by deeming
fiction which presupposes and requires the commission of the offence by the
company or firm. Therefore, unless the company or firm has committed the
offence as a principal accused, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) or
(2) would not be liable and convicted as vicariously liable. Section 141 of
the NI Act extends vicarious criminal liability to officers associated with the
company or firm when one of the twin requirements of Section 141 has been
satisfied, which person(s) then, by deeming fiction, s made vicariously liable
and punished. However, such vicarious liability arises only when the
company or firm commits the offence as the primary offender. This view has
been subsequently followed in Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane,
Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and Another, and Hindustan Unilever Limited
v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 November, 2020
"14. The provisions of Section 141 impose vicarious liability by deeming
fiction which presupposes and requires the commission of the offence by the
company or firm. Therefore, unless the company or firm has committed the
offence as a principal accused, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) or
(2) would not be liable and convicted as vicariously liable. Section 141 of
the NI Act extends vicarious criminal liability to officers associated with the
company or firm when one of the twin requirements of Section 141 has been
satisfied, which person(s) then, by deeming fiction, s made vicariously liable
and punished. However, such vicarious liability arises only when the
company or firm commits the offence as the primary offender. This view has
been subsequently followed in Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane,
Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy and Another, and Hindustan Unilever Limited
v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1