https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386552 The court rejected the criminal applications challenging the issuance of process against the applicants under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the applicants as directors, emphasizing that vicarious liability must be strictly construed. The court found that the resignation of the directors was not valid as per Section 168 of the Companies Act, as proper approval and documentation were lacking. The applications were deemed devoid of merit, and the rule was discharged. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2019 06:07:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386552 The court rejected the criminal applications challenging the issuance of process against the applicants under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the applicants as directors, emphasizing that vicarious liability must be strictly construed. The court found that the resignation of the directors was not valid as per Section 168 of the Companies Act, as proper approval and documentation were lacking. The applications were deemed devoid of merit, and the rule was discharged. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386552