advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
indian companies act
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act: 1985: s. 37-Application for bail-Companies providing network facilities for arranging supply of banned psychotropic substance on line-Owner arrested u/ss. 24 and 29-Plea of applicant that his companies were protected from prosecution by s. 79 of Information Technology Act-Held: Applicant and his associates were not innocent intermediaries or network service providers as defined under s. 79 of I.T. Act but the said business was only a facade and comouflage for more sinister activity-In this situation, s. 79 will not grant immunity to an accused who has violated provisions of the Act as this provision gives immunity from prosecution for an offence only under I.T. Act itself-In the face of overwhelming inculpatory evidence it is not possible to give finding envisaged under s.37 of the Act for grant of bail that there were reasonable grounds for believing that applicant was not guilty of offence alleged, or that he would not resume his activities should bail be granted-Information Technology Act, 2000-s. 79. K.T.S. Tulsi and Uday Umesh Lalit, Arun Kumar Srivasma, Manoj Prasad, Amit Pawan and G. Bhargava for the Appellant. Vikas Singh, ASG., B.B. Singh, Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the Respondents.
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1659 of 2007 PETITIONER: Sanjay Kumar Kedia RESPONDENT: Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2007 BENCH: S.B.SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1659 OF 2007 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 3892 of 2007) HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Special Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading
Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter called `the Act 1964′).= Respondent no. 1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and manufactures Ayurvedic medicines including Chawanprash at Naini, Allahabad. For that purpose, the respondent no. 1 has obtained a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. For manufacturing Chawanprash the said respondent purchases certain agricultural produce e.g. Gur, Amala and Ghee etc. and use the same as raw material. B. The appellants served a notice dated 17.3.1999 calling upon the respondent no. 1 for taking a licence under section 9 of the Act 1964 as it was purchasing and processing the aforesaid agricultural produce in its ordinary course of business. Respondent no. 1 submitted reply to the said notice on 31.3.1999 pleading that it was not required to take licence as the said respondent was not doing any business in the sale or purchase of agricultural produce. The appellant found the explanation furnished by respondent no. 1 unsatisfactory and, thus, sent another notice dated 2.12.2000 calling upon respondent no.1 to take a licence failing which legal proceedings could be initiated against it. Similar notices were subsequently sent to respondent no. 1 on 3.12.2000 and
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8963 OF 2003 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad … Appellant Versus M/s Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 