<?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>2012 (6) TMI 887 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279304</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability of directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not automatic. A complaint must contain specific and clear averments showing that, at the relevant time, the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business. A bare statement that a person was a director, or a general allegation without particulars of the person&#039;s role in finances, cheque issuance, or control of affairs, is insufficient to attract liability. The document states that such pleadings cannot sustain proceedings against directors and that the complaint on the facts described was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 887 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279304</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability of directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not automatic. A complaint must contain specific and clear averments showing that, at the relevant time, the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business. A bare statement that a person was a director, or a general allegation without particulars of the person&#039;s role in finances, cheque issuance, or control of affairs, is insufficient to attract liability. The document states that such pleadings cannot sustain proceedings against directors and that the complaint on the facts described was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>