<?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 (9) TMI 660 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332399</link>
    <description>Section 319 CrPC can be invoked on evidence recorded by affidavit at the pre-summoning stage, because examination in chief is sufficient and cross-examination need not be completed before the court acts. The Delhi HC also reaffirmed that liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to a person in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business; a managing director is ordinarily within that category. The petitioner could not avoid proceedings merely because his name was absent from the original complaint or because no separate notice had been issued. The challenge to summoning was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:40:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 660 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332399</link>
      <description>Section 319 CrPC can be invoked on evidence recorded by affidavit at the pre-summoning stage, because examination in chief is sufficient and cross-examination need not be completed before the court acts. The Delhi HC also reaffirmed that liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to a person in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business; a managing director is ordinarily within that category. The petitioner could not avoid proceedings merely because his name was absent from the original complaint or because no separate notice had been issued. The challenge to summoning was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>