https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364260 Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against non-signatory directors require a specific averment that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Mere designation as a director is insufficient, although a managing director, joint managing director, or cheque signatory may stand on a different footing. A director facing summons cannot seek quashing merely because no further particulars are pleaded, but quashing may be justified where sterling incontrovertible material shows the contrary. On the stated facts, the complaints and summoning orders failed because the requisite averments were absent, and the orders quashing the process were upheld. en-us Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:50:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364260 Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against non-signatory directors require a specific averment that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Mere designation as a director is insufficient, although a managing director, joint managing director, or cheque signatory may stand on a different footing. A director facing summons cannot seek quashing merely because no further particulars are pleaded, but quashing may be justified where sterling incontrovertible material shows the contrary. On the stated facts, the complaints and summoning orders failed because the requisite averments were absent, and the orders quashing the process were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364260