Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Government Sanction Not Needed for Prosecuting Govt. Company Employees Under Section 197</h1> <h3>Medchel Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. Versus Dr. DC. Mallik</h3> Medchel Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. Versus Dr. DC. Mallik - [1998] 94 COMP. CAS. 259 (MAD.) Issues Involved:1. Sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.2. Validity of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.3. Competency of the complainant to file the complaints.4. Nature of cheques issued as security and their presentation.5. Non-production of the memorandum of understanding and its impact on the case.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sanction to Prosecute under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:The court examined whether the employees of MMTC, a government-owned company, required sanction from the government to be prosecuted. The employees argued that they were public servants under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and thus required sanction. It was found that accused Nos. 2 to 10 could be removed by the managing director of the company, and hence did not require government sanction. However, the director (eleventh accused) was appointed by the President of India, leading to a debate on whether he required sanction. The court concluded that the director could also be removed by an ordinary resolution of the board of directors, thus not requiring sanction under Section 197. Consequently, the order discharging the eleventh accused was set aside, and the petitions of other employees were dismissed.2. Validity of Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The court addressed whether Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which pertains to stopping proceedings in summons cases, applied to private complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The magistrate had erroneously discharged the accused under Section 258, despite it not being applicable to private complaints. The court emphasized that the allegations in the complaints clearly constituted an offense under Section 138, and the magistrate's decision to stop proceedings was a manifest illegality.3. Competency of the Complainant to File the Complaints:The court examined the issue of whether Mr. Lakshman Goyal, who filed the complaints on behalf of MMTC, was authorized to do so. Evidence showed that Mr. Goyal was empowered to file the complaints, and later, Mr. Sampath Kumar was authorized to continue the prosecution. The court concluded that the complaints were validly filed by an authorized representative of MMTC, and the magistrate's finding to the contrary was incorrect.4. Nature of Cheques Issued as Security and Their Presentation:The court considered whether the cheques issued by MCPL were meant only as security and if their presentation for encashment was contrary to the agreement. The evidence indicated that the cheques were issued as security but were presented due to MCPL's failure to comply with the conditions of exporting the finished products within the prescribed time. The court found that the presentation of cheques was justified, and the magistrate's conclusion that Section 138 was not attracted was erroneous.5. Non-Production of the Memorandum of Understanding:The court addressed the magistrate's criticism of MMTC for not producing the memorandum of understanding and its addendum. The court noted that both parties had copies of these documents, and the accused could have presented them if they contradicted MMTC's claims. The court found the magistrate's criticism unfounded and held that the non-production of these documents did not undermine the prosecution's case.Conclusion:The court set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in Crl. M.Ps. Nos. 2377 to 2380 in C.C. No. 3491 to 3494 of 1995. The complaints were restored to file, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dispose of the cases on their merits. The court also allowed Crl. R.C. No. 450 of 1996, setting aside the discharge of the eleventh accused, and dismissed Crl. R.C. Nos. 578 and 579 of 1996. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on June 8, 1998.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found