Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.35 seconds)Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 8 May, 2008
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
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005
"11. It is now well settled that in order to
constitute an offence under section 304A of
Indian Penal Code, the negligence imputed to
the accused must be gross in nature. Though
the term "gross" has not been used in section
304A of Indian Penal Code, in JACOB MATHEW
vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & Others in (2005) 6
SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
examining a case of criminal medical negligence
by a Doctor under section 304A of Indian Penal
Code, has reviewed the case law on the subject
and in para 48 thereof, has held as under:
Emperor vs Shivdas Omkar Marwadi on 15 November, 1912
But the said
contention was negatived by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by endorsing the view taken in
EMPEROR vs. OMKAR RAMPRATAP in (1902) 4
Bombay LR 679, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that,
"This view has been generally followed by High
Courts in India and is in our opinion the right
view to take of the meaning of S.304-A. It is not
necessary to refer to other decisions, for as we
have already said this view has been generally