Advanced Search Results

Krishna Texport Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcm Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : CompanyBanking

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 2, 138, 141 and 542; Income Tax Act; Foreign Exchange Control Act; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 2(1), 16, 17, 22, 22(1) and 25; State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 - Sections 29 and 31; Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 179; Provident Fund Act; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 5, 10, 179(457), 391, 391(1), 391(2), 391(6), 433, 442, 446, 446(1), 446(2) 446(3), 454, 454(5A), 454(5), 457, 545, 621, 633 and 633(2)

Reported in : IV(2008)BC627; [2008]114CompCas113(Delhi); (2008)4CompLJ177(Del); 150(2008)DLT259; 2008(104)DRJ101; [2009]89SCL151(Delhi)

court Under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to stay criminal proceedings has given rise to the present appeal.2. The commercial relationship between the appellant and the respondent started … view between the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court in respect of the power of the company court Under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to stay

Shree Dharma Sudar Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Comp ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 469

Reported in : [1989]66CompCas337(Kar)

and serious consideration so far as the facts are concerned. Therefore his request for time is rejected. 2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 44 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction … Deposits) Rules 1975 reads as :- 'Return of deposits to be filed with the Registrar :- (1) Every company to which these rules apply, shall on or before the 30th day of June, or every year, file

Shree Dharma Sugar Industries (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Compa ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 - Rules 10 and 11; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468

deep and serious consideration-so far as the facts are concerned. Therefore, his request for time is rejected. 2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 44 of 1986 by the accused is directed the judgment and order of conviction and … Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 reads as: 'Return of deposits to be filed with the Registrar.-(1) Every company to which these rule apply, shall on or before the 30th day of June, of every year, file

Manas Kumar Ghosh Vs. T.T.P. Mahmood and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : CriminalCompany

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Section 630;; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313;; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 406 and 428

Reported in : (2000)2CALLT423(HC),[2000(86)FLR898]

G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This criminal revisions is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court Alipore dated the 8th … the learned Magistrate was not concluded. It may be mentioned here that sometime in the year 1995 the Company also filed a civil suit against the opposite parties for recovery of the possession of the flat and

M/S. Appolo Tyres L Vs. M/S. H.M. Tyres and Anoth

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Land Acquisition

THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1590 of 2005 and BATCH0606-2014 M/s. Appolo Tyres Ltd. Appellant M/s. H.M. Tyres and another. Respondents Counsel … Krishna Rao was examined as P.W.1 and placed reliance upon the respective authorisation, Certificate of Incorporation of the company, the respective invoices for the supply of stocks as ordered by the accused and the cheques issued pursuant

Sammeta Sriha Vs. the Statte of Andhra Pradesh Represented

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Land Acquisition

HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.312 OF200804-06-2014 Sammeta Srihari....Appellant The Statte of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor and another...ResponDENTS !Counsel … of the presumption of fact and to that proposition, the earlier expression in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal para-12 showing the burden on the accused is to bring on record by preponderance

Hind Syntex Ltd. Vs. Dewas Textile Mills (P.) Ltd.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 433 and 442

Reported in : [1989]66CompCas927(MP)

in the present winding-up petition filed on behalf of the petitioner against the respondent company be stayed till Criminal Case No. 93 of 1987, filed by the petitioner against Shri Jawaharlal Daga, managing director of the respondent

Vardhman Stamping Private Limited Vs. Imp Power Limited and 4 ors.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 11(1), 138, 141 and 141(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 190, 200, 204, 239, 252, 297(2), 397, 397(2) and 482

Reported in : 2007CriLJ273

for the respective respondents waives service of rule in each of the applications.2. The group of eight Miscellaneous Criminal Applications was listed for hearing. The learned Counsels of respective parties have made submissions at length since last … out as under. The petitioners, stated to be sister concerns, had business transactions with the Respondent No. 1 Company. The Respondent No. 2 is the Chairman the respondent No. 1 Company. The Respondent No. 3 is the

Kannankandi Gopal Krishna Nair Vs. Prakash Chunder Juneja and Another

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CompanyCriminal

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 630 and 630(2)

Reported in : 1993(3)BomCR116; [1994]81CompCas104(Bom); 1993CriLJ2791; (1994)ILLJ146Bom

the accused is permitted to take advantage of his own wrong which is anathema to accepted canons of criminal jurisprudence. Such gymnastics, if permitted, will have the effect of nullifying the rule of law and the courts, … J.1. Though this appeal is just one more of the numerous litigations relating to the non-return of a company flat by an ex-employee, it raises certain interesting legal aspects of far-reaching consequences. The first question that arises

The Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-ii, Bangalore and ors. Vs. Vell ... Overruled

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalCompany

Acts : Income Tax Act - Sections 2(31), 266B, 276B, 276C, 276F, 277, 278, 278A, 278B, 278B(1), 279, 279(1) and 279(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 190(1), 197, 235(2), 360 and 482 - Order 21, Rules 32 and 33; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 62 and 326; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975; Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, 1995; Crimes Act, 1914 - Sections 4B(3); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 6 and 19; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 17 and 20; General Clauses Act - Sections 3(42); Wealth Tax Act - Sections 35H; Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act - Sections 14A; Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 141; Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Sections 34 and 35; Essential Commodities Act - Sections 7, 10 and 10B; Indian Merchandise Act -

Reported in : AIR2004SC86; (2004)1CompLJ21(SC); 2004CriLJ1221; (2003)184CTR(SC)193; 2003(157)ELT369(SC); [2003]263ITR550(SC); JT2003(Suppl2)SC99; 2003(7)SCALE530; (2003)11SCC405; [2003]4

those who work or are working for it have committed a crime and can be convicted in a criminal case? (ii) Whether a company is liable for punishment of fine if the provision of law contemplates punishment