<?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>2005 (10) TMI 576 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199299</link>
    <description>For prosecution of company directors or officers under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint must plead specific facts showing how each accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Mere status as director, chairman, or vice chairman, or a general assertion that all accused managed the company&#039;s affairs, is insufficient. The pleading must disclose actual involvement in the relevant transaction or overall control linked to the offence. On the facts stated, the complaint lacked the required particulars, so summoning the respondents was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2018 18:08:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 576 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199299</link>
      <description>For prosecution of company directors or officers under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint must plead specific facts showing how each accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Mere status as director, chairman, or vice chairman, or a general assertion that all accused managed the company&#039;s affairs, is insufficient. The pleading must disclose actual involvement in the relevant transaction or overall control linked to the offence. On the facts stated, the complaint lacked the required particulars, so summoning the respondents was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>