https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161089 In cheque dishonour proceedings, a statutory notice addressed to the Managing Director in his personal name did not justify quashing the complaint where he had issued and signed the cheques and was proceeded against in that capacity. The omission of the company's name in the notice was not fatal on these facts. The Supreme Court held that interference under inherent jurisdiction was unwarranted and that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings. en-us Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 23:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161089 In cheque dishonour proceedings, a statutory notice addressed to the Managing Director in his personal name did not justify quashing the complaint where he had issued and signed the cheques and was proceeded against in that capacity. The omission of the company's name in the notice was not fatal on these facts. The Supreme Court held that interference under inherent jurisdiction was unwarranted and that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161089