TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Vicarious Liability Standards Clarified: Specific Allegations & Evidence Required for Prosecution Quashing</h1> <h3>Ashok Muthana and 6 Others Versus Escorts Finance Ltd.</h3> Ashok Muthana and 6 Others Versus Escorts Finance Ltd. - TMI Issues:Accused seeking to quash proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on vicarious liability and lack of specific allegations.Analysis:The petitioners, accused 2 to 8, sought to quash proceedings in C.C.No.8736 of 1999, arguing that the complaint lacked specific allegations attributing any acts to them regarding the dishonored cheque. The complaint implicated the petitioners as directors of the company without verifying that some were deceased or had retired years ago. The petitioners contended that no material showed their vicarious liability as required under Section 141(2) of the Act. They presented evidence of death and retirement to support their case.The judge referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Limited and other cases to analyze vicarious liability. The judge emphasized that the complaint must establish the petitioners' active role in the company's affairs for vicarious liability. Quoting previous judgments, the judge highlighted the necessity of demonstrating the petitioners' responsibility for the day-to-day business conduct. The judge noted that vague allegations without factual basis cannot sustain prosecution against individuals not actively involved in the company's operations.Considering the lack of evidence implicating the petitioners in the cheque issuance or bank instructions, the judge concluded that the proceedings against accused 2 to 8 should be quashed. The judge allowed the petition, quashing the prosecution against these accused individuals. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the case against other accused parties promptly. The judgment highlighted the importance of specific allegations and evidence to establish vicarious liability in such cases.In summary, the judgment focused on the necessity of concrete allegations and evidence to establish vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It emphasized the active involvement of accused individuals in the company's operations for prosecution to proceed. The judge's analysis underscored the importance of factual basis and specificity in complaints to sustain legal proceedings against accused parties effectively.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
