Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Ankit Singla – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks quashing of charges against directors. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. company appoints competent person for supervision. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. raids reveal spurious drugs; directors join investigation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. directors not liable without day-to-day responsibility averments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. investigation evidences directors' involvement in spurious drugs. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 6. section 482 powers exercised sparingly to prevent abuse. (Para 54 , 55) |
| 7. specific averments justify directors' vicarious liability. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 8. petition dismissed; trial to proceed. (Para 64) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), for quashing the order dated 10.6.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), wher
Directors liable under Drugs Act Section 34 if complaint specifically avers their involvement in business conduct via emails and records, notwithstanding competent person appointment.
Vicarious liability under Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific complaint averments that director/MD in charge and responsible for company business conduct; mere designation insuffi....
Directors cannot be held liable for a company's criminal acts without specific allegations of their involvement; mere directorship is insufficient for establishing vicarious liability.
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires specific averments in the complaint to establish that individuals were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at t....
Liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires clear averments in the complaint regarding the accused's managerial responsibility; mere directorship is insufficient without evidence of control ....
Vicarious liability under Drugs Act Section 34 requires specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for day-to-day business and supervision; mere directorship insufficient, bu....
Vicarious liability under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 arises if the person was in charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company at the time of the offence, and the company mu....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
