TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi 1983 1 SCC 1 and State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal 1998 5 SCC 343 taking one view and U.P Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery 1987 3 SCC 684 taking another view, opined that the matter requires to be heard by a Bench of three learned Judges. By this way, the matter, therefore, has come before us. 2. The core question t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... miscellaneous application. It is against the said order and judgment of the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties, however, agreed that keeping in view the special facts and circumstances of this case, the question referred to us need not be answered. 4. We have looked into the facts of this case and find that as far back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re issue of summons that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable to any negligence on the part of the appellants. Sub-section (2) of Section 47 requires that where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
