Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
The court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.