https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196433 The court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash the summoning order dated 16.01.2013, holding that specific allegations against the petitioners established their vicarious liability under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the need for specific averments in the complaint regarding the directors' role and responsibility in the company's affairs. As such, the court directed the trial court to proceed with examining the petitioners' liability for the offense under section 138 of the NI Act after recording evidence, highlighting the limited scope for quashing proceedings at the initial stage. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:00:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196433 The court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash the summoning order dated 16.01.2013, holding that specific allegations against the petitioners established their vicarious liability under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the need for specific averments in the complaint regarding the directors' role and responsibility in the company's affairs. As such, the court directed the trial court to proceed with examining the petitioners' liability for the offense under section 138 of the NI Act after recording evidence, highlighting the limited scope for quashing proceedings at the initial stage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196433