SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1532

M.B.SHAH, K.T.THOMAS
H. V. Jayaram – Appellant
Versus
Industrial Credit And Investment Corporation Of India LTD. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Shah, J. -Leave granted.

2. The only question involved in these appeals is whether the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 113(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 could be filed only where the registered office of the company is situated or where the complainant is residing.

3. The appellant had lodged criminal cases before the Special Court for economic offences in Karnataka at Bangalore on the allegation that the respondent companies had committed offences punishable under Section 113(2) of the Companies Act. Criminal Petition Nos. 240, 1485, 1548, 1848 and 1849 of 1996 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting applications for the discharge on the ground that the Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offences. In some cases, companies straightway approached the High Court questioning the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to them after taking cognizance of the offence. It was pointed out that admittedly the registered offices of the respondent companies are not located in the State of Karnataka but are located either at Bombay or at Gujarat.

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top