Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka VS Tourism Finance Corporation Of India Ltd...
Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka VS Tourism Finance Corporation Of India Ltd - 2023 4 Supreme 711 : Even after the completion of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the personal penal liability of directors or signatories under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for dishonour of cheque) does not get extinguished. Criminal proceedings against them under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act continue, as the dissolution of the company or the completion of the IBC process does not terminate their individual criminal liability. The liability of the natural persons (directors/signatories) remains intact and they cannot escape prosecution merely because the corporate debtor has been dissolved or its debt discharged under the IBC. This is based on the principle that ''''law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform'''' (lex non cogit ad impossibilia), and the law must avoid absurd situations where directors could evade criminal liability simply due to corporate restructuring.Checking relevance for State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation: Gian Singh VS Gian Singh: The State Of Punjab...
State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation: Gian Singh VS Gian Singh: The State Of Punjab - 1999 8 Supreme 44 : When a person has already been punished under a law that has expired (such as TADA 1985), and a subsequent law (like TADA 1987) provides for a lesser punishment for the same offence, the court can extend the benefit of the lesser punishment to the accused even if the original law did not provide an alternative. This is permissible under Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto laws that increase punishment, but allows legislative benevolence to be extended to an accused who is awaiting sentence. In such cases, the court may award a lesser sentence (e.g., imprisonment for life) even after the original law has expired, especially when the accused has been in custody for a long time. However, once the punishment has been fully served, there is no further liability for the person, and the court cannot impose additional punishment. The principle is that once the punishment is complete, no further liability arises.Checking relevance for Amar Chand VS Bhano...
Amar Chand VS Bhano - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 1215 : When a decree-holder compromises with the principal judgment-debtor without reference to the surety (guarantor), and such compromise results in full satisfaction of the decree, the surety is automatically relieved of liability. The liability of the guarantor or surety is co-extensive with that of the judgment-debtor. Therefore, once the decree-holder has compromised and discharged the principal debtor, the surety is no longer liable to the decree-holder for any further recovery, and the decree-holder cannot proceed against the surety. In such a case, the surety''''s obligation is extinguished, and the execution petition against the surety must be closed as full satisfaction has been deemed to have occurred.Checking relevance for Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda...
Dilip Hariramani VS Bank of Baroda - 2022 5 Supreme 287 : Under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vicarious criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque can only be imposed if the firm or company has first been found to have committed the offence as a principal accused. In the present case, the partnership firm was not made an accused or summoned to be tried for the offence. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant (a partner) cannot stand, as vicarious liability under Section 141 arises only when the firm or company is the primary offender. The court held that the appellant cannot be held criminally liable merely because he was a partner or guarantor, as such liabilities are civil in nature under the Partnership Act, 1932 and Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, punishment cannot be imposed on a partner for the firm''''s offence unless the firm itself is prosecuted and found guilty.Checking relevance for Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal VS Union of India...
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal VS Union of India - 2022 1 Supreme 539 : Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, if a right, privilege, obligation, or liability has accrued to either party under a repealed enactment (such as Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995), then the repeal does not affect such accrued rights. In this case, the respondent (CRPF) had a privilege under the 2002 notification exempting it from the application of Section 47 of the PwD Act. However, this privilege is not automatically accrued; it only arises when the privilege-holder performs an act required by statute to avail of it. Since no such act was performed to avail of the privilege before the repeal, no privilege had accrued to the respondent under the old law. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim protection under the repealed provision in ongoing proceedings after the RPwD Act, 2016 came into force. As a result, the respondent’s liability in disciplinary proceedings remains subject to the protections under the new RPwD Act, 2016, including the duty to provide reasonable accommodation and non-discrimination.
