<?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>2013 (7) TMI 1086 - Kerala High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195402</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a strict exception to the general rule against such liability and requires a specific averment that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. A mere description as a director is insufficient; the complaint must disclose the accused&#039;s actual role in the conduct of business. Where the company records and annual report showed the petitioners as independent and non-executive directors, and the complaint contained only a general assertion of day-to-day responsibility, the factual basis was held inadequate. The complaints were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2017 15:44:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 1086 - Kerala High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195402</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a strict exception to the general rule against such liability and requires a specific averment that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. A mere description as a director is insufficient; the complaint must disclose the accused&#039;s actual role in the conduct of business. Where the company records and annual report showed the petitioners as independent and non-executive directors, and the complaint contained only a general assertion of day-to-day responsibility, the factual basis was held inadequate. The complaints were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>