<?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>2016 (6) TMI 726 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329017</link>
    <description>Signed blank cheques filled up later do not, by themselves, attract criminal liability unless they were completed with authority and in support of a legally cognizable debt. Where the cheque was issued only as security, the liability had not crystallised, and civil disputes were already pending, dishonour proceedings could not rest on an enforceable debt. Vicarious liability for company-related dishonour offences also requires specific averments and material showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time, or that the offence occurred with consent, connivance, or neglect. Broad or routine allegations were held insufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 726 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329017</link>
      <description>Signed blank cheques filled up later do not, by themselves, attract criminal liability unless they were completed with authority and in support of a legally cognizable debt. Where the cheque was issued only as security, the liability had not crystallised, and civil disputes were already pending, dishonour proceedings could not rest on an enforceable debt. Vicarious liability for company-related dishonour offences also requires specific averments and material showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time, or that the offence occurred with consent, connivance, or neglect. Broad or routine allegations were held insufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>