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

K.J.ROHEE
Nishitkumar Swaika – Appellant
Versus
Hazarimal Mishrilal Bafna – Respondent


Judgment

K.J. Rohee, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the non-applicants.

2. Criminal Application No.302 of 2000 arises out of the common Order dated 19-1-2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in 19 Criminal Complaint Cases namely, Case Nos.698 of 1994 to 716 of 1994.

3. The facts which are relevant for the purposes of deciding these applications are as under :

The complainants are the members of Hindu Undivided Family. They are Traders and Commission Agents. Accused no.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office and factory is at Shivni (Madhya Pradesh) and corporate office at Nagpur. Accused No. 2 is the Chairman-cum-Director, accused no.3 is Managing Director and Vice-Chairman, accused nos.4 and 5 are the Directors of the said company and accused Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the employees of the said company.

4. According to the complainants, the said company functions under the control of accused Nos. 2 to 8, they are the brain behind the functioning of accused No. 1. Nothing moves in the company except at the dictates of accused Nos. 2 to 8. Accused Nos. 2 and 8 are in-change and are respo

















































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