https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349823 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld where it was filed through an authorised representative supported by board resolution and verification material showing personal knowledge and reliance on company records. The Court treated the Section 202 CrPC inquiry requirement as directory in this context and held that alleged non-compliance did not vitiate process where the Magistrate had otherwise applied mind to the material. It also found sufficient averments to invoke vicarious liability under Section 141, while disputes about electronic records, e-mails, and Section 65B compliance were matters for trial rather than quashing at the threshold. The proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349823 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld where it was filed through an authorised representative supported by board resolution and verification material showing personal knowledge and reliance on company records. The Court treated the Section 202 CrPC inquiry requirement as directory in this context and held that alleged non-compliance did not vitiate process where the Magistrate had otherwise applied mind to the material. It also found sufficient averments to invoke vicarious liability under Section 141, while disputes about electronic records, e-mails, and Section 65B compliance were matters for trial rather than quashing at the threshold. The proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349823