Common Law

A brilliant proposition of law, of great public importance, in the judgment of the Bombay High Court, shared by Advocate Shyam Narvekar… In the case of Legrand (India) Private Limited Versus Union Of India [ 2008 (2) BCR 387 : 2007 (6) MhLj 146], the Bombay High Court have held that the Public authorities / persons may be held guilty of contempt of the Court, if, in the regular discharge of their duties, they knowingly disregard the law laid down by the said Court. It is a case where, despite being specifically brought to the knowledge of the law being laid down by the Bombay High Court, the Public officer acted in breach of the law laid down; and the High Court, in the Writ jurisdiction, initiated Contempt proceedings against the said officer. The Court held that – (a) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a party, but if a law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must be fol

Dis. Cheques – Directors’ Crim. Liab – Injudicious approach so far … In this write up, I intend to deal with an issue which I think is not judiciously dealt with, although there are hundreds of precedents which otherwise have dealt with the issue. Recently I had happened to closely witnessed a case of offence u/s 138 of of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, i.e., of dishonoured cheque, wherein in the Complaint, it was barely averred that the “…. are Directors of the Company and are in-charge of the day to day affairs of the business of the accused company”, and the Magistrates Court happily issued processes (Summons) against all those Directors. The Directors therein preferred Revision Application before the Sessions Court, thereby challenging the issuance of said Summons. The said Revision was founded on the grounds that the impugned Order passed by the Ld. Magistrate is in breach of the mandate of Section 204 of