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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 22

GUHA RAY, SEN GUPTA
SAILENDRA NATH SINHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SEN, DHRUBA MUKHERJI, NALIN CHANDRA BANERJI, NANI KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY

GUHA RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by two petitioners, the first of whom was one of the Directors and the second the Managing Director of the Bank of Commerce Ltd. , Calcutta, against an order dismissing their prayer for, staying criminal proceedings pending against them under Ss. 406, 467 and 477, Penal Code, in the Court of a Presidency Magistrate and also against an order directing their specimen writings to be taken.

( 2 ) IT appears that the criminal proceedings against these petitioners were started on a complaint filed by the Official Liquidator with the permission of the Company Judge of the High Court. Thereafter, there was an appeal from the order of the Company Judge which gave sanction to the Official Liquidator and the proceedings were held up. When that appeal was disposed of, the proceedings began once again. There was another prayer for stay on grounds, first, that the proceedings under Section 237, Companies Act, were pending against these petitioners and second that they have obtained special leave to appeal' to the Supreme Court from the order of this Court in the appeal from the order of the Company Judge permitting the prosecution of these petitioners.





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