https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109699 Pendency of proceedings against a sick industrial company does not automatically bar prosecution for dishonour of cheque; the effect of any restraint order under the sick company legislation depends on the facts, including its timing, scope and the material before the Magistrate. Where those facts are not part of the complaint, quashing at the threshold under inherent jurisdiction is inappropriate and the issue should be examined by the trial court. Allegations that directors consented to issuance of the cheques also prevent their liability from being finally determined at the threshold, because that question must ordinarily be tested on evidence before the Magistrate. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:29:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109699 Pendency of proceedings against a sick industrial company does not automatically bar prosecution for dishonour of cheque; the effect of any restraint order under the sick company legislation depends on the facts, including its timing, scope and the material before the Magistrate. Where those facts are not part of the complaint, quashing at the threshold under inherent jurisdiction is inappropriate and the issue should be examined by the trial court. Allegations that directors consented to issuance of the cheques also prevent their liability from being finally determined at the threshold, because that question must ordinarily be tested on evidence before the Magistrate. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109699