<?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>2014 (12) TMI 1070 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254727</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only where the complaint contains specific averments that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence, or that the offence occurred with the director&#039;s consent, connivance or negligence. As the record showed the director had resigned before the cheques were issued, was not the cheque signatory, and there was no material showing involvement in day-to-day affairs, prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 could not stand. A bare assertion of responsibility was insufficient, and continuation of the complaint was held to be an abuse of process, so the proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1070 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254727</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only where the complaint contains specific averments that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence, or that the offence occurred with the director&#039;s consent, connivance or negligence. As the record showed the director had resigned before the cheques were issued, was not the cheque signatory, and there was no material showing involvement in day-to-day affairs, prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 could not stand. A bare assertion of responsibility was insufficient, and continuation of the complaint was held to be an abuse of process, so the proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>