<?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>2014 (2) TMI 1368 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284617</link>
    <description>Cheques-dishonour complaints containing specific averments that the accused directors negotiated the transaction, managed the company&#039;s day-to-day affairs, and were in office when the post-dated cheques were issued are not liable to be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that disputed resignation documents and other defence material cannot be weighed against the complaint allegations at the quashing stage, especially where the pleaded facts place the transactions and cheque issuance before resignation took effect. The challenge to the summoning orders therefore failed, leaving the accused to contest liability in accordance with law at trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:50:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1368 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284617</link>
      <description>Cheques-dishonour complaints containing specific averments that the accused directors negotiated the transaction, managed the company&#039;s day-to-day affairs, and were in office when the post-dated cheques were issued are not liable to be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that disputed resignation documents and other defence material cannot be weighed against the complaint allegations at the quashing stage, especially where the pleaded facts place the transactions and cheque issuance before resignation took effect. The challenge to the summoning orders therefore failed, leaving the accused to contest liability in accordance with law at trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>