Case Laws

Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 482 0f Code of Criminal Procedure – Cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, taken on the basis of a cause of action that has not accrued at the time of making the complaint but […]

Case/Question decided Mr. X, son of Mr. Y, has died in an accident. Then Ms. Z, mother of Mr. X  made a claim against the insurance company stating that Mr. X was employed as driver by Mr. Y and Mr. X has died during the course of the said employment. The question that has been

Case/Question decided: Pursuant to Right to Information Act, Mr. X  approached Registrar of Companies (ROC), requesting him to provide some information/documents maintained by them under Section 610 of the Companies Act 1956. The ROC officials  replied to Mr. X that the required information is available in the public domain (namely on MCA website) and even

Case/Question decided: If a Public Authority like SEBI receives any document/information during the course of its statutory duties, can they be considered to be received in “fiduciary relationship” and can it be treated to be the information exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act 2005, which entitles the Public Authority to deny

The petitioner (Nivedita Sharma) was allotted 5(five) ICICI bonds on 15.7.1996 at a price of Rs.5200/- each bearing the face value of Rs. 2,00,000/- each, consisting of an option for premature redemption and with surrender date of 15.7.2021. The petitioner on 2nd March, 2009 wrote to the ICICI for redemption of her bonds. But ICICI

Avnish Bajaj v. State & anr; Ebay India Pvt. Ltd v. State & Anr decided by Supreme Court on 27th April, 2012. Brief Facts: The main issue involved in this batch of appeal is whether Directors of a Company alone can be prosecuted without making the Company as one of the accused. However, the Supreme

The period of limitation commences from the day the offence comes to the knowledge of the complainant. Brief facts : A complaint was received by the Regional Director, Northern Region, Noida regarding irregularity/ illegality in the affairs of the Petitioner Company (M/s. Khulood Impex Private Limited). The complaint was forwarded to the Respondent/ Complainant (ROC)

The transfer of an undertaking under a Scheme of arrangement under Section 391-394 of Companies Act, 1956 is ‘Slump sale’ which is taxable under Section 50B of the Income-tax Act. Brief fact of the Case : The petitioner (SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited) under a scheme of arrangement, transferred its project financing business and assets based

Facts: 1. The appellant is the registered proprietor of the trademark “HAWKINS” in respect of pressure cookers and parts thereof, including gaskets, falling under Class-21 of the erstwhile Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. 2. The grievance relates to the respondent, M/s. Murugan Enterprises, manufacturing and selling gaskets under the trademark “MAYUR”. But on the

M/S. RAJESH AND CO (Petitioner firm) Vs. RAVISSANT PVT LTD (Respondent Company) decided on 24/02/2012 Brief facts:  The facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner firm had been supplying fabric to the respondent company on regular basis from 1996 onwards and as per the reconciliation of accounts for the period from 1st