Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of the summoning order in proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that he had retired from the partnership and was not in charge of the firm when the cheque was issued or dishonoured.
Analysis: Vicarious liability under Section 141 attaches to a partner who was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of commission of the offence. A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may succeed only where the accused produces unimpeachable and uncontroverted material showing that continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process. Here, the claimed retirement from the firm, the modified partnership deed, and the alleged intimation to the complainant were disputed. The cheque in question was alleged to be issued in replacement of a security cheque issued when the petitioner was admittedly a partner, and the effect of the alleged retirement was itself a matter of defence requiring trial.
Conclusion: Quashing was not warranted, because the material relied upon by the petitioner was not of such sterling quality as to conclusively negate liability at the threshold.