https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199295 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, averments that the company's directors were in charge of and responsible for its business, and that the cheque was issued with their consent and connivance, were treated as sufficient at the summoning stage. The objection that each director had not been individually served with notice was rejected because notice to the company and concerned persons was not defeated on that basis. The court also stressed that inherent jurisdiction should be used sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution or decide disputed facts before evidence is led. On those facts, the challenge to the summoning order failed. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:37:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199295 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, averments that the company's directors were in charge of and responsible for its business, and that the cheque was issued with their consent and connivance, were treated as sufficient at the summoning stage. The objection that each director had not been individually served with notice was rejected because notice to the company and concerned persons was not defeated on that basis. The court also stressed that inherent jurisdiction should be used sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution or decide disputed facts before evidence is led. On those facts, the challenge to the summoning order failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199295