Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
In an appeal by a convicted director/authorised signatory under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act where the company could not be proceeded against due to a legal impediment, the Court examined whether an appellate deposit under Section 148 can be directed against such individual. It held that the appellate court must not impose the 20% deposit mechanically and must consider exceptional circumstances, including that the appellant may not be the "drawer"; accordingly, the condition directing deposit was quashed and suspension of sentence was restored on bond. However, noting conflicting interpretations on whether Section 148 is confined to the juristic drawer in all such scenarios, the question was referred for decision by a Larger Bench. - SC
In an appeal by a convicted director/authorised signatory under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act where the company could not be proceeded against due to a legal impediment, the Court examined whether an appellate deposit under Section 148 can be directed against such individual. It held that the appellate court must not impose the 20% deposit mechanically and must consider exceptional circumstances, including that the appellant may not be the "drawer"; accordingly, the condition directing deposit was quashed and suspension of sentence was restored on bond. However, noting conflicting interpretations on whether Section 148 is confined to the juristic drawer in all such scenarios, the question was referred for decision by a Larger Bench. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
