https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279332 In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, disputed issues about the mode or service of demand notice, the effect of RBI directions or a winding-up stay, and the directors' resignation were held to be matters for trial, not grounds for quashing. The Court found that notice need not be served only in one prescribed manner, that external restraint orders did not create immunity from prosecution, and that the complaint's averments that the petitioners were in charge of day-to-day business and had signed the cheque were sufficient to proceed. The defence based on Form 32 and resignation could not be accepted at the Section 482 stage. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:23:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279332 In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, disputed issues about the mode or service of demand notice, the effect of RBI directions or a winding-up stay, and the directors' resignation were held to be matters for trial, not grounds for quashing. The Court found that notice need not be served only in one prescribed manner, that external restraint orders did not create immunity from prosecution, and that the complaint's averments that the petitioners were in charge of day-to-day business and had signed the cheque were sufficient to proceed. The defence based on Form 32 and resignation could not be accepted at the Section 482 stage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279332