<?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>2009 (11) TMI 513 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113534</link>
    <description>Vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches only where, at the time of the offence, the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, or where the complaint specifically pleads consent, connivance, or negligence under sub-section (2). A certified copy of Form No. 32 showing resignation before the cheques were issued was treated as authentic material disproving the petitioner&#039;s directorship, and the complaint&#039;s bare assertion that he was a director was insufficient. As no necessary averments or supporting material were shown, proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, while the case against the other accused remained unaffected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 513 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113534</link>
      <description>Vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches only where, at the time of the offence, the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, or where the complaint specifically pleads consent, connivance, or negligence under sub-section (2). A certified copy of Form No. 32 showing resignation before the cheques were issued was treated as authentic material disproving the petitioner&#039;s directorship, and the complaint&#039;s bare assertion that he was a director was insufficient. As no necessary averments or supporting material were shown, proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, while the case against the other accused remained unaffected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>