<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (11) TMI 346 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111380</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not maintainable where the cheque was presented and the complaint was filed after the company had already been ordered to be wound up. Once winding up was ordered, the company&#039;s affairs vested in the Official Liquidator and the former Directors ceased to manage its business; the statutory debt-payment mechanism then operated under the Companies Act, 1956. The presumptions under Section 139 and vicarious liability under Section 141 did not assist the complainant because the company could not be treated as having committed the offence after liquidation. Directors also could not be proceeded against on that complaint.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 346 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111380</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not maintainable where the cheque was presented and the complaint was filed after the company had already been ordered to be wound up. Once winding up was ordered, the company&#039;s affairs vested in the Official Liquidator and the former Directors ceased to manage its business; the statutory debt-payment mechanism then operated under the Companies Act, 1956. The presumptions under Section 139 and vicarious liability under Section 141 did not assist the complainant because the company could not be treated as having committed the offence after liquidation. Directors also could not be proceeded against on that complaint.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>