https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327513 Basic averments that a company director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business are sufficient to justify issuance of process in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act; the court at the summoning stage need not conduct a mini-trial or demand detailed proof of each director's role. A director's alleged prior resignation will not justify quashing unless the material showing cessation of office is unimpeachable, uncontroverted, and clearly establishes effective resignation and acceptance before the cheque-related acts. Where resignation is disputed and supporting records do not conclusively prove timely acceptance, inherent jurisdiction to quash should not be exercised. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2016 23:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327513 Basic averments that a company director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business are sufficient to justify issuance of process in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act; the court at the summoning stage need not conduct a mini-trial or demand detailed proof of each director's role. A director's alleged prior resignation will not justify quashing unless the material showing cessation of office is unimpeachable, uncontroverted, and clearly establishes effective resignation and acceptance before the cheque-related acts. Where resignation is disputed and supporting records do not conclusively prove timely acceptance, inherent jurisdiction to quash should not be exercised. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327513