Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Vicarious liability of a company director for cheque dishonour...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sustain prosecution.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Vicarious liability of a company director for cheque dishonour requires a complaint to specifically aver that the director was both in charge of, and responsible to, the company for conducting its business when the offence occurred. Mere directorship or a general allegation that all directors managed day-to-day affairs is insufficient. The complaint must also disclose the identity of the person who drew or signed the cheque. As no individual role was attributed to the director and no cheque signatory was identified, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process and the cheque-dishonour proceeding was quashed against that director.
Vicarious liability of a company director for cheque dishonour requires a complaint to specifically aver that the director was both in charge of, and responsible to, the company for conducting its business when the offence occurred. Mere directorship or a general allegation that all directors managed day-to-day affairs is insufficient. The complaint must also disclose the identity of the person who drew or signed the cheque. As no individual role was attributed to the director and no cheque signatory was identified, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process and the cheque-dishonour proceeding was quashed against that director.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
