Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
SC determined that a director who is not a signatory to a dishonored cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the 1881 Act unless Section 141 requirements are met. Section 141(1) mandates two distinct conditions: the person must be both in charge of and responsible for company's business conduct when the offense occurred. The complaints failed to establish that the appellant was in charge of company business at the relevant time. Without meeting these twin requirements and absent being a cheque signatory, vicarious liability cannot be imposed on the director under Section 138. Appeal allowed, director absolved of liability.
SC determined that a director who is not a signatory to a dishonored cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the 1881 Act unless Section 141 requirements are met. Section 141(1) mandates two distinct conditions: the person must be both in charge of and responsible for company's business conduct when the offense occurred. The complaints failed to establish that the appellant was in charge of company business at the relevant time. Without meeting these twin requirements and absent being a cheque signatory, vicarious liability cannot be imposed on the director under Section 138. Appeal allowed, director absolved of liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
