Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court  in HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. has recently held that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not provide for vicarious liability for any offence alleged to be committed by a company. A division bench of Justice PC Ghose and Justice Amitava Roy also held that if and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefore, e.g. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Bench has relied on a previous judgment of Supreme Court in S.K. Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, in which it is held that the Indian Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing therefore, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence. The court has also relied on another judgment in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein it is held as follows: “The Indian Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vica...

The Calcutta High Court, in Indian Oil Officers’ Association vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, has held that an Association has a clear right to maintain this writ application on behalf of its members. Justice I.P. Mukerji referring to various Apex Court decisions, also observed that body corporate may not only sue or be sued for violation of Article 19 but it may also sue for violation of Article 14 or any other law. This observation was made in a Writ petition preferred by a registered Trade Union against IOC challenging a Memorandum of Understanding purportedly entered into by six members of this Association with the Corporation. It is argued IOC that “the writ was by the Association. It primarily complained of the infringement of fundamental rights by the Corporation under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19 conferred those rights on citizens only. He cited The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. the State of Bihar and others, The Automobile Products of India ...

The Bombay High Court has held that relevant period for deciding the vicarious liability of the Director for the act committed by the Company is not only when the cheque was dishonoured, but also when the disputed transaction was entered into, and from time to time thereafter like at the time of issuance of the cheque in question, presentation of said cheque in Bank etc. Justice Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi made this observation in Mrs. Lata Pramod Dave vs. M/s. Mode Export Private Limited, wherein the petitioner had approached the High Court to quash the process under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act issued against her on the ground that, on the date when the cheque in question was presented to the Bank and came to be dishonoured, she was no more the Director of the Company as she has already resigned from the Company. According to Petitioner, she has tendered her resignation on 1st January 2013 and it was received by the Company on the same date. The resignation date seriously d...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2094 of 2007] Aneeta Hada ...Appellant Versus M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2117 of 2007] JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J : Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours ... on 8 May, 2008 2. Appellant is said to be an authorised signatory of M/s. Intel Travels Ltd (Company). The said Company as also the respondent company had business transactions. Appellant on behalf of the company issued a cheque dated 17.1.2001 for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- in favour of respondent which was dishonoured. Respondent filed a complaint petition against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed as an accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against her....

If two companies have to be declared 'related persons' for excise purposes, there should be mutuality of interest in the business of each other. If there is only 'one-way traffic', the two companies are not related. The revenue authorities must prove mutuality of interest or "two-way traffic", Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal of the commissioner of central excise against the order of the appellate tribunal in a case involving Goodyear South Asia Tyres Ltd. The company in this case was a joint venture of RPG SATL and Goodyear. It manufactured and supplied tyres exclusively to Ceat and Goodyear sold in their brand names. Goodyear and RPG Ceat had 50:50 shares in the assessee company. The excise authorities issued demand notice to the company on the basis of related persons under section 4 of the Excise Act. The company contended that its sale of tyres to the two companies was on principal to principal basis and at arm's length. The commission...