AI Overview...
-
Sabitha Rammurthy vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya (2006) SCC 581 - The Supreme Court discussed the requirements of Section 141 of the relevant Act, emphasizing the concept of vicarious liability and the legal fiction created by this section. The judgment clarified that even if a person is not personally liable, they could be held liable under vicarious liability principles Amarnath Baijnath Gupta VS Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque, Amarnath Baijnath Gupta VS Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. - Bombay, A. K. GOENKA VS MAGMA LEASING LIMITED - Calcutta, KAMAKHYA TEA CO. PVT. LTD. VS CHITRA CHEMICALS - Gauhati.
-
Legal Principle on Vicarious Liability - The case established that Section 141 raises a legal fiction, making a person liable for offenses committed by another if certain conditions are met, thereby extending liability beyond direct commission KAMAKHYA TEA CO. PVT. LTD. VS CHITRA CHEMICALS - Gauhati.
-
Judicial Interpretation - The judgment aligned with a broader judicial trend, adopting a larger bench view as seen in other cases like SMS Pharmaceuticals, indicating a consistent interpretation of vicarious liability principles in criminal law A. K. GOENKA VS MAGMA LEASING LIMITED - Calcutta.
-
References to Related Cases - The decision is supported and cited in multiple judicial discussions, reinforcing its significance in understanding liability and the scope of Section 141 Amarnath Baijnath Gupta VS Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque, Nitesh Jayantilal Jain VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay, SAROJ KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Calcutta.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The case of Sabitha Rammurthy is pivotal in Indian criminal jurisprudence for clarifying the scope of vicarious liability under Section 141. It underscores that liability can be imposed based on legal fiction, making individuals accountable for offenses committed by others within certain contexts. This decision has been extensively relied upon in subsequent legal arguments and judgments to interpret liability issues Amarnath Baijnath Gupta VS Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque, KAMAKHYA TEA CO. PVT. LTD. VS CHITRA CHEMICALS - Gauhati.
Search Results for "Sabitha Rammirthy"
• India - Dishonour Of Cheque
A.S.OKA
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sabitha Ramamurthy and another Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya ({2006}10-SCC-581). ... The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sabita Rammurthy and another Vs. R.B.S.Channabasavardhya ({2006}10-SCC-581). In the said judgement the Apex Court has dealt with the requirements of Section 141 of the said Act. ... ... Relying upon the said decision of t....
2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1723 • India - Bombay
A.S.OKA
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sabitha Ramamurthy and another Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya ({2006}10-SCC-581). ... The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sabita Rammurthy and another Vs. R.B.S.Channabasavardhya ({2006}10-SCC-581). In the said judgement the Apex Court has dealt with the requirements of Section 141 of the said Act. ... ... Relying upon the said decision of t....
• India - Dishonour Of Cheque
J.H.BHATIA
In support of this contention he placed reliance upon Sabitha Rammurthy & Anr. v. R.B.S.
2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 903 • India - Bombay
J.H.BHATIA
In support of this contention he placed reliance upon Sabitha Rammurthy & anr. vs. R.B.S.
2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 533 • India - Calcutta
TAPAN MUKHERJEE
... ( 19 ) IN the case of Sabitha Rammurthy and Anr. vs. RBS Channabasavaradhya, disposed of 13. 9. 2006 by the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2006 SC at page 3086, relied by the ld. ... If view of the Apex Court in the case of Sabitha Rammurthy and Anr. vs. RBS channabasavaradhya, reported in AIR 2006 SC at page 3086 decided on 13. 9. 06, is read from such angle then it appears that in that case also the Apex Court adopted the larger Bench view in SMS Pharmaceuticals Limited vs.
2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 908 • India - Bombay
J.H.BHATIA
In Sabitha Rammurthy & anr -vs- R B S Channabasavaradhya (AIR 2006 SC 3086), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 7 thus:- ... .
2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 906 • India - Bombay
J.H.BHATIA
In Sabitha Rammurthy and anr vs. R. B. S.
• India - Dishonour Of Cheque
J.H.BHATIA
In Sabitha Rammurthy & Anr. v. R.B.S.
2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 265 • India - Calcutta
SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA
State of Gujarat and Ors.), JT (2006) 12 SC 20 (Sabitha Rammurthy and Anr. v. R. B. S. Channabasavaradhya), 2002 SCC (Cr) 1038 (K. P. G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd.) and (2005)2 C Cr LR (SC) 457 (S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr. ).
2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 699 • India - Gauhati
ROBIN PHUKAN
Neeta Bhalla and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 89 (ii) Sabitha Rammurthy and Another vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya, (2006) 10 SCC 581 (iii) Saroj Kumar Podder vs. ... In the case of Sabitha Rammurthy (supra) it has been held that: “Section 141 raises a legal fiction. By reason of the said provision, a person although is not personally liable for commission of such an offence would be vicariously liable there for. ... It is to be mentioned here that in the case of Sabita Ramamurthy (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court ....
Filter by Legal Phrase
