Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia VS India Ener-Gen Private Limited...
Checking relevance for Srinivas Gupta VS Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for K. S. Mehta VS Morgan Securities And Credits Pvt. Ltd. ...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 448 : A witness to a document cannot be held liable for its contents unless they are specifically alleged to have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of the offence. The law requires specific allegations in the complaint demonstrating the witness''''s direct involvement in the company''''s financial affairs. Mere presence as a witness or directorship does not create automatic liability. Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, must be pleaded and proved, not inferred, and cannot be fastened on a person who is not in charge of or responsible for the business of the company at the relevant time.Checking relevance for Kaushal Kishor VS State of Uttar Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Patel Roadways LTD. VS Birla Yamaha LTD. ...
Checking relevance for ABHIJIT PAWAR VS HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR...
Checking relevance for Pawan Kumar VS Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal...
Checking relevance for Vinode V. Lukas/o. Late V.D. Luka Vs State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Rajaram Gangaram Ghag VS Geeta Vinod Jethva...
Checking relevance for Ramaiah Konar Navneetha Krishnan, S/o S. Ramaiah Konar VS Athukuri Nagewara Rao, rep. BY P. P. Proprietor of Lakshmi Balaji Cotton Traders...
Checking relevance for Dharmesh Prafulchandra Trivedi vs Axis Bank Ltd Through Ashish Vijay Vergiya...
Checking relevance for Surendra Kumar Kapur VS Pradip Kumar Chakraborty...
Checking relevance for Dev Raj S/O Shri Bashi Ram VS Bir Singh Malhotra Son Of Sh. Gurumukha Singh...
Checking relevance for ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS RAJU...
Checking relevance for P. C. Agarwala VS Payment of Wages Inspector, M. P. ...
2005 7 Supreme 23 : Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Act of 1964), liability for payment of wages is cast only on the ''''employer'''' (defined under Section 2(ia)) and a person named as Manager of the Factory, jointly. The Act does not statutorily impose personal liability on Directors of a company for payment of wages. The court held that on a plain reading of the statute, Directors cannot be held personally liable unless they are either the employer or formally named as the Factory Manager. The High Court''''s decision holding Directors liable by introducing the term ''''occupier''''—which is not part of the Payment of Wages Act—was found untenable. Therefore, a witness to a document (or any individual) cannot be held liable for the contents of the document or for wage payments under this Act unless they fall within the statutory categories of ''''employer'''' or ''''Manager of the Factory''''.Checking relevance for M. P. Electricity Board VS Shail...
Checking relevance for S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals LTD. VS Neeta Bhalla...
Checking relevance for Bharat Insecticides Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan...
Checking relevance for Sabitha Ramamurthy VS R. B. S. Channabasavardhya...
2006 7 Supreme 168 : A witness to a document cannot be held liable for the contents of the document. The legal principle established in the document emphasizes that mere presence as a witness does not imply responsibility for the truth or validity of the document''''s contents. This is reinforced by the court''''s observation that the sworn statement of the witness in the case did not contain any assertion that the appellants were in charge of the business of the company, which was a critical requirement for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court held that strict compliance with statutory requirements is necessary before any person can be made vicariously liable, and the absence of such averments—particularly regarding the witness’s role or responsibility—means that the witness cannot be held accountable for the document’s contents. Thus, the role of a witness is limited to attesting to the execution of the document, not its substance.Checking relevance for Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation VS Rajiv Kumar Bhasker...
2005 5 Supreme 649 : In the context of a ''''Salary Savings Scheme'''' for life insurance, where the employer assumed responsibility for deducting premiums from employees'''' salaries and transmitting them to the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), the employer acted as an agent of the Corporation. The court held that the LIC could not avoid its liability under the policy on the grounds that the policy had lapsed due to non-receipt of premium, because the employer''''s role as agent meant the Corporation was bound by the employer''''s actions in collecting and forwarding premiums. This establishes that a witness or intermediary (here, the employer) who performs a duty on behalf of a party (the insurer) cannot be held liable for the contents or consequences of the document (the policy) when acting within the scope of their assigned responsibility, and the principal (the insurer) remains liable for fulfilling the contractual obligations.Checking relevance for Deb Prasad Chiney @ Debi Prosad Chiney VS State of West Bengal...
Checking relevance for Kedar Nath Mukhopadhyay VS State Of Jharkhand...
Checking relevance for Darshani Devi VS Sheo Ram...
Checking relevance for Lav Jhingan VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL...
Checking relevance for Md. Fasiuddin VS State of Bihar...
Checking relevance for SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY VS SWAPNA MUKHERJEE...
