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...

In Paradeep Port Trust v. Chunilata Mohanty and Ors., 21-year old educated son of complainant, lost his life by drowning at Boat Club, owned by Appellant, Paradeep Port Trust. Appellant has tried to shift the blame on their lessee, the TIDC, saying that the entire responsibility for running the Boat Club had been entrusted upon OP-2. Vide impugned order, State Commission, after taking into account averments of parties, allowed consumer complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of 5 lakh as compensation to complainant for gross deficiency in service alongwith 5,000/- as litigation cost. It is against this order that present appeal has been made before this Commission. Since, TIDC was only bidder, as stated by Appellant, they handed over operation of Boat Club alongwith Open Air Restaurant to them for a period of 6 years. It was evident that, while making such arrangements, Appellant should have ensured that, all terms and conditions, and more so, those mentioned in technical bid wer...

Government is liable to compensate for death or injury occurring to a vehicle owner during an accident as road tax is levied by them and as coverage is not available to the owner in the insurance provided as per law, says the Kerala High Court. Government can either pay such compensation or assign the burden to insurance companies through appropriate change in legislation, the court said. A division bench comprising justices CT Ravikumar and KP Jyothindranath asked the government to give due attention to the matter after considering an appeal (MACA No. 2102/2013) filed by the wife, children, and mother of Biju of Kottaram Nagar in Kollam who died in a motorcycle accident at around 5.30pm on March 21, 2010. Biju was riding pillion on the motorcycle owned by him and one Gireesh Kumar was riding the bike when it capsized. Biju had obtained a full insurance from National Insurance Co. Ltd but the company declined to grant compensation stating they are liable to pay only a third party and...

Orissa High Court has recently held that a writ application for payment of compensation for the death of a person in electrocution is maintainable when the undisputed facts clearly reveal the same. Petitioners, the unfortunate parents of Mr. Madhusudan Das, who died in electrocution, approached the High Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of their only son. The Petitioners stated in the Petition that, on 12.7.1997 evening while their son, Madhusudan Das was driving the cattle, who were damaging the standing paddy crops, from the field by holding a lathi, the said lathi touched the electric live line of the pump house, as a result of which, he got the electric shock, fell down and became senseless. Thereafter he was shifted to headquarter Hospital, Jajpur for treatment. On the way he expired. Justice AK Rath has co...

The Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra has reiterated that a Director cannot get a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint against him quashed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment no particulars are given in the complaint about his role In this case, the High Court had quashed the summons issued to director and other officials of a company, which had issued cheques to the bank which were dishonoured, singularly on the ground that there are no allegations against them connecting them with the affairs of the Company. The Bank preferred the appeal before Apex court. Apex Court referred to Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Anu Mehta and Ors. wherein it was held “ When in view of the basic averment process is issued the complaint must proceed against the Directors. But, if any Director wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only ...

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...