1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Directors in Section 138 Case</h1> The Supreme Court quashed the complaint and summoning order against accused No.2 to 7, who were directors of accused No.1, in a case involving allegations ... - Issues involved: Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against company and its directors. Quashing of complaint and summoning order.Details of the judgment:Issue 1: Allegations against the directors of the company- Respondent No.2 filed a complaint u/s 138 alleging non-payment of dues by accused No.1.- Accused No.2 to 7 described as managing director and directors of accused No.1.- Pre-summoning evidence led to summons against all accused.- Accused No.4, 3, and 6 sought quashing of the complaint and summoning order.- Directors' liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 discussed.- Supreme Court decisions emphasized the need for specific averments against directors.- Complaint lacked specific allegations against directors, leading to quashing of petitions by accused No.2 to 7.Issue 2: Existence of complainant company during the transaction- Accused No.1 issued a cheque to the complainant company.- Dispute regarding the existence of the complainant company during the transaction.- Prima facie evidence suggested the complainant existed during the transaction.- Complaint and summoning order upheld against accused No.1.- Petitions by accused No.2 to 7 quashed, no costs awarded.