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...
HC held that the Petitioner, who resigned as Director on 14.05.2015, cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques dated 04.10.2016 and 20.12.2016. The court found no specific evidence connecting the Petitioner to the dishonoured cheques or the underlying debt. Following the Supreme Court's precedent in a similar case, the court emphasized that a former director cannot be held responsible for company affairs after resignation. The Petitioner was neither a signatory to the cheques nor part of the promissory note, thus rendering the vicarious liability claim unsustainable. Petition allowed.
HC held that the Petitioner, who resigned as Director on 14.05.2015, cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques dated 04.10.2016 and 20.12.2016. The court found no specific evidence connecting the Petitioner to the dishonoured cheques or the underlying debt. Following the Supreme Court's precedent in a similar case, the court emphasized that a former director cannot be held responsible for company affairs after resignation. The Petitioner was neither a signatory to the cheques nor part of the promissory note, thus rendering the vicarious liability claim unsustainable. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
