<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352830</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be imposed only where the complaint and material show that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, or that the offence occurred with consent, connivance or neglect. A Special Director appointed under Section 16(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to fall outside the ordinary regime of company management, and mere status as a nominated or non-executive director was insufficient. As there was no cogent material showing day-to-day control or role in issuance or dishonour of the cheques, the proceedings against the applicant were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:09:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352830</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be imposed only where the complaint and material show that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, or that the offence occurred with consent, connivance or neglect. A Special Director appointed under Section 16(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was held to fall outside the ordinary regime of company management, and mere status as a nominated or non-executive director was insufficient. As there was no cogent material showing day-to-day control or role in issuance or dishonour of the cheques, the proceedings against the applicant were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>