<?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>2010 (2) TMI 590 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113795</link>
    <description>Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes vicarious criminal liability on company officers only on strict pleadings showing that the accused was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business. Mere recital that a person was a director, or a bald repetition of the statutory language, is insufficient. Managing directors, joint managing directors, and the signatory of the dishonoured cheque are ordinarily covered by their roles, but other directors require specific factual averments linking them to the business affairs at the relevant time. In the absence of such allegations, the prosecution against the director cannot be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2025 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 590 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113795</link>
      <description>Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes vicarious criminal liability on company officers only on strict pleadings showing that the accused was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business. Mere recital that a person was a director, or a bald repetition of the statutory language, is insufficient. Managing directors, joint managing directors, and the signatory of the dishonoured cheque are ordinarily covered by their roles, but other directors require specific factual averments linking them to the business affairs at the relevant time. In the absence of such allegations, the prosecution against the director cannot be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>