https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96902 Section 136(4) was treated as primarily imposing liability on the company, while personal liability of a Managing Director could arise only if the complaint alleged that he knowingly or wilfully authorised or permitted the default. In the absence of such an allegation, the Managing Director could not be personally summoned for a prosecution directed at the company. The company, as a separate legal entity, had to be proceeded against in its own capacity, and service of summons on the company was available under section 69(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The summons against the Managing Director was therefore invalid, but proceedings could continue against the company in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 1944 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:15:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96902 Section 136(4) was treated as primarily imposing liability on the company, while personal liability of a Managing Director could arise only if the complaint alleged that he knowingly or wilfully authorised or permitted the default. In the absence of such an allegation, the Managing Director could not be personally summoned for a prosecution directed at the company. The company, as a separate legal entity, had to be proceeded against in its own capacity, and service of summons on the company was available under section 69(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The summons against the Managing Director was therefore invalid, but proceedings could continue against the company in accordance with law. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Jan 1944 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96902