<?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>2018 (9) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366358</link>
    <description>Vicarious liability of company directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be presumed merely from their status as directors. A complaint must specifically aver, with respect to each accused, that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business at the relevant time, and must disclose the individual role alleged. Omnibus allegations against all directors are insufficient, especially where they are not signatories to the cheques. On the complaint as filed, the essential requirements for issuance of process were not made out, and the process issued against the applicants was quashed with consequential proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2018 13:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366358</link>
      <description>Vicarious liability of company directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be presumed merely from their status as directors. A complaint must specifically aver, with respect to each accused, that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business at the relevant time, and must disclose the individual role alleged. Omnibus allegations against all directors are insufficient, especially where they are not signatories to the cheques. On the complaint as filed, the essential requirements for issuance of process were not made out, and the process issued against the applicants was quashed with consequential proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>