https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269989 In a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a specific averment that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business was sufficient to resist quashing at the threshold. Disputed questions concerning alleged resignation, non-signatory status, and responsibility for the transaction could not be decided in quashing jurisdiction, particularly where the alleged resignation was not shown to have been notified to the Registrar of Companies and the challenge was raised after evidence had been recorded. The petition for quashing was dismissed, and the complaint and summoning order were left to be tried on merits before the trial court, with directions to expedite the proceedings. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:22:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269989 In a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a specific averment that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business was sufficient to resist quashing at the threshold. Disputed questions concerning alleged resignation, non-signatory status, and responsibility for the transaction could not be decided in quashing jurisdiction, particularly where the alleged resignation was not shown to have been notified to the Registrar of Companies and the challenge was raised after evidence had been recorded. The petition for quashing was dismissed, and the complaint and summoning order were left to be tried on merits before the trial court, with directions to expedite the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269989