High Court was legally justified in setting aside the judgement and decree of the trial court and allowing the appeal to the limited extent of remanding the matter to the trial court for a de-novo trial after permitting the defendant-respondent to file the written statement. The appeal consequently stands dismissed.
After investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed anywhere in this petition that he had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order attained finality as has not been challenged any further.
If the offence is by a Company, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative: the company can have criminal liability and further, if a group of persons that guide the business of the companies have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate. In this backdrop, Section 141 of the Act has to be understood. The said provision clearly stipulates that when a person which is a company commits an offence, then certain categories of persons in charge as well as the company would be deemed to be liable for the offences under Section 138. Thus, the statutory intendment is absolutely plain. As is perceptible, the provision makes the functionaries and the companies to be liable and that is by deeming fiction.
The Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation to the widow and dependents of a person who was killed in a road accident, ruling that the future earning capacity of the deceased should also be taken into account while calculating the loss of income to the family. In this case, Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Company Ltd, the deceased person was running a milk dairy.
As far as the submission of shifting of tax liability is concerned, as observed in paragraph 9 of Laghu Udyog Bharati (Supra), service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability of service tax. Though the appellant became the assessee due to amendment of 2000, his position is exactly the same as in respect of Sales Tax, where the seller is the assessee, and is liable to pay Sales Tax to the tax authorities, but it is open to the seller, under his contract with the buyer, to recover the Sales Tax from the buyer, and to pass on the tax burden to him.
Undoubtedly, in a civilized society governed by rule of law, the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be imposed. Principle enshrined in Criminal Jurisprudence to this effect is prescribed in legal maxim nulla poena sine lege which means that a person should not be made to suffer penalty except for a clear breach of existing law.
Sri Marcel Martins Vs M. Printer & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) SEVERAL MEMBERS OF FAMILY PROVIDING CONSIDERATION TO CONVERT LEASE PROPERTY INTO FREEOLD BUT REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY HELD ON THE NAME OF ONE PERSON’S NAME-WHETHER CONSIDERED AS BENAMI PROPERTY? BRIEF FACTS: Ms. SM was a tenant (Lessee) of a residential house owned by Municipal […]
Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 636, wherein during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act, prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC had been launched. This Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, observing that it would amount to abuse of process of law. In fact, the issue as to whether the ingredients of both the offences were same, had neither been raised nor decided.
According to a Supreme Court order as given below, there is no need for the Charitable & Religious Trusts Registered in Maharashtra to pay the 2% Annual Cess / Levy / Fees Tax Contribution to the Charity Commissioner’s Office, of their total income, which is used to run the Charity Commissioner’s office.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government and its agencies cannot alienate public property or issues licences in favour of selected individuals or companies at its sweet will. The government cannot give or withhold largesse in its arbitrary discretion or according to its sweet-will. The government cannot now say that it will transfer the property (land etc.) or will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue permits or licences only in favour of certain individuals.
