https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340121 The Court held that the petitioner, an independent non-executive nominee director, could not be vicariously liable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as specific allegations of involvement were lacking. The complaints and summoning orders against the petitioner were quashed due to his resignation before the cause of action accrued, and the absence of evidence showing his role in the company's affairs. The Court emphasized that vicarious liability arises only if a person is responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense. The petitioner's petitions were allowed, and he was not held liable. en-us Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:59:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340121 The Court held that the petitioner, an independent non-executive nominee director, could not be vicariously liable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as specific allegations of involvement were lacking. The complaints and summoning orders against the petitioner were quashed due to his resignation before the cause of action accrued, and the absence of evidence showing his role in the company's affairs. The Court emphasized that vicarious liability arises only if a person is responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense. The petitioner's petitions were allowed, and he was not held liable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340121