https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188305 A director cannot be proceeded against for a company's contravention on the basis of a notice that lacks specific averments showing that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or that the statutory ingredients of consent, connivance or neglect are disclosed. Mere status as a director is insufficient to create vicarious liability. Writ relief under Article 226 remains available where proceedings are initiated without legal foundation and no effective alternative remedy is shown, because such exposure to quasi-criminal adjudication constitutes substantial injury. The notice was therefore quashed against the petitioner, with liberty to proceed afresh on proper materials. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:45:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188305 A director cannot be proceeded against for a company's contravention on the basis of a notice that lacks specific averments showing that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or that the statutory ingredients of consent, connivance or neglect are disclosed. Mere status as a director is insufficient to create vicarious liability. Writ relief under Article 226 remains available where proceedings are initiated without legal foundation and no effective alternative remedy is shown, because such exposure to quasi-criminal adjudication constitutes substantial injury. The notice was therefore quashed against the petitioner, with liberty to proceed afresh on proper materials. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 11 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188305