https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279308 In prosecutions under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a disputed claim that a director had resigned before the relevant transactions cannot ordinarily be decided in writ proceedings at the stage of issuance of process, because it requires proof of documents and other evidence. The complaints were held to contain sufficient averments where they stated that the accused directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's business and were handling day-to-day affairs, which is enough to attract vicarious liability under section 141. The challenge to the summoning order therefore failed, and the proceedings were directed to continue expeditiously. en-us Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:51:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279308 In prosecutions under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a disputed claim that a director had resigned before the relevant transactions cannot ordinarily be decided in writ proceedings at the stage of issuance of process, because it requires proof of documents and other evidence. The complaints were held to contain sufficient averments where they stated that the accused directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's business and were handling day-to-day affairs, which is enough to attract vicarious liability under section 141. The challenge to the summoning order therefore failed, and the proceedings were directed to continue expeditiously. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279308