TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed against the petitioner in exercise of inherent powers on the ground that he had resigned as a director and that the complaints lacked specific averments as required for fastening liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The petitioner's claim of prior resignation was not accepted at face value. The loan documentation on record showed the petitioner as one of the full-time directors and contained his particulars, which militated against the plea that he had ceased to be associated with the company at the relevant time. The resignation letter was found to be unsupported by any board resolution or certified filing showing acceptance of resignation and change in the board's constitution. In the absence of reliable documentary proof of resignation, the Court held that the matter required trial and that the petitioner could not be exonerated at the threshold. The Court also found that the complaints did not disclose such infirmity as would justify quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Conclusion: The petitions for quashing were not maintainable on the facts and the petitioner remained liable to face trial under the complaints.
TaxTMI 
