https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279368 Limitation barred the cheque-dishonour complaint against the company because no complaint was filed within the prescribed period after the first dishonour, and subsequent presentation did not revive the claim against it. Proceedings against the managing director remained maintainable because the notice and prosecution related to the later dishonour and the complaint specifically alleged that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. A prosecution for cheque dishonour may continue against a responsible director where the required allegations are pleaded, even if proceedings against the company fail on limitation. The summoning order was quashed only for the company and sustained against the managing director. en-us Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:04:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279368 Limitation barred the cheque-dishonour complaint against the company because no complaint was filed within the prescribed period after the first dishonour, and subsequent presentation did not revive the claim against it. Proceedings against the managing director remained maintainable because the notice and prosecution related to the later dishonour and the complaint specifically alleged that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. A prosecution for cheque dishonour may continue against a responsible director where the required allegations are pleaded, even if proceedings against the company fail on limitation. The summoning order was quashed only for the company and sustained against the managing director. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279368