https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111466 The Supreme Court held that the appellant, a director, could not be held liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as he had resigned before the issuance of the cheques. The court emphasized the need for specific allegations to establish vicarious liability and ruled that merely holding a designation in a company is not sufficient for criminal liability. The court quashed the proceedings against the appellant, concluding that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Section 141. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. en-us Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 May 2014 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111466 The Supreme Court held that the appellant, a director, could not be held liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as he had resigned before the issuance of the cheques. The court emphasized the need for specific allegations to establish vicarious liability and ruled that merely holding a designation in a company is not sufficient for criminal liability. The court quashed the proceedings against the appellant, concluding that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Section 141. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111466