CHEQUE BOUNCE – Delhi High Court Judgements

Vicarious liability of Chief Account officer – Officer, non-signatory to cheque — Specific averment that petitioner/ accused persuaded the complainant to enter into the transaction with the Company by showing the financial position of the Company as well as making them believe in the capacity of the same to repay the debts – Held, complainant has fulfilled the basic criteria

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 25, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. CRL.M.C. 5218 of 2019 Reserved on: 12.01.2023 Decided on: 17.01.2023 Anurag Gangwal - Petitioner Versus State & Anr. - Respondents Alongwith CRL.M.A.…

CHEQUE BOUNCE

Vicarious liability — Phraseology used in Section 141 of the Act of being in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of Company is a reference to an “executive activity” which imports an element of running day-to-day affairs of the Company and would not be extended to a role which is essentially supervisory, policy oriented, of oversight or regulatory i.e. non-executive in character

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 25, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Anish Dayal, J. CRL.M.C. 1409 of 2018 Reserved on: 13.03.2023 Decided on: 11.04.2023 Yashovardhan Birla - Petitioner Versus CECIL Webber Engineering Ltd & Ors - Respondents…

CHEQUE BOUNCE

Petitioner is the wife of other partner in the accused firm — On the date when the alleged offence was committed, the petitioner was not a partner – held abuse of the process of law and the Ld. Trial Court has passed the summoning order without any application of mind. Quashed

admin_lawsdelhi Jun 25, 2023 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT Before: Amit Mahajan, J. CRL.M.C. 197 of 2022 Decided on: 03.03.2023 Ridhima Jain - Petitioner Versus M/s Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent Alongwith CRL.M.A. 775/2022…

Petitioner is the wife of other partner in the accused firm — On the date when the alleged offence was committed, the petitioner was not a partner – held abuse of the process of law and the Ld. Trial Court has passed the summoning order without any application of mind. Quashed

You Missed

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark

DB – services rendered by advocates are professional activities, and, therefore, they cannot be levied with taxes under the “commercial establishment” category

DB – Defamation — Nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence did the appellant or its witnesses state that the amounts were not due — Respondent’s assertion of there being outstanding amounts which had not been paid by the appellant Company cannot be termed to be false or per se defamatory.