https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342047 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, directors can face liability only if the complaint contains basic averments that they were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business; mere designation as a director is insufficient. Here, the complaint described the applicants as persons in charge of the company's affairs, and the record also referred to their audit committee role and receipt of remuneration, which weakened the claim that they were wholly unconnected. In a quashing petition, interference is justified only on unimpeachable material showing no concern with the transaction, and no such material was produced; the proceedings were therefore not liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Apr 2017 07:24:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342047 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, directors can face liability only if the complaint contains basic averments that they were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business; mere designation as a director is insufficient. Here, the complaint described the applicants as persons in charge of the company's affairs, and the record also referred to their audit committee role and receipt of remuneration, which weakened the claim that they were wholly unconnected. In a quashing petition, interference is justified only on unimpeachable material showing no concern with the transaction, and no such material was produced; the proceedings were therefore not liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342047