Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
In SMS
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla [(2005) 8 SCC 89], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while mere designation as a
director is not sufficient, the complaint must contain a specific
averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for
Digitally signed
by SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 27 April, 2012
Further, in Anita Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd.
[(2012) 5 SCC 661], the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that
the liability of a director under Section 141 is derivative and
vicarious, and once the company is arraigned as an accused, its
directors may also be proceeded against subject to fulfilment of
the statutory conditions. It has been further held by Hon'ble
Apex Court that to escape such vicarious liability, the director
must place on record sterling and unimpeachable evidence
showing that he or she was not in charge of, or responsible for,
the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time.