https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352287 A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act can proceed against a director when it contains basic averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, and such pleadings satisfy the threshold requirement under Section 141. The complaint here specifically alleged that the director was involved in day-to-day business and transactions, so prosecution could not be avoided on that ground. A limitation defence based on whether the cheques represented a time-barred liability and whether later cheques amounted to written acknowledgment involved disputed facts and evidence, and was therefore not suitable for quashing under Section 482. The cognizance order was upheld and quashing was refused. en-us Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:28:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352287 A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act can proceed against a director when it contains basic averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, and such pleadings satisfy the threshold requirement under Section 141. The complaint here specifically alleged that the director was involved in day-to-day business and transactions, so prosecution could not be avoided on that ground. A limitation defence based on whether the cheques represented a time-barred liability and whether later cheques amounted to written acknowledgment involved disputed facts and evidence, and was therefore not suitable for quashing under Section 482. The cognizance order was upheld and quashing was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352287