https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287531 Process against an alternate director was quashed where the complaint failed to attribute any specific role, control, or knowledge to him in the alleged loan disbursement without prior sanction under section 295(4) of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint mainly alleged wrongdoing by the managing director and other directors directly involved, while the petitioner was shown only as an alternate director and practising advocate. His non-signatory status on the cheque and the absence of material showing active participation in the company's day-to-day affairs meant that a balance-sheet signature alone was insufficient to infer knowledge or impose vicarious liability. The limitation point was left open as a mixed question of law and fact. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287531 Process against an alternate director was quashed where the complaint failed to attribute any specific role, control, or knowledge to him in the alleged loan disbursement without prior sanction under section 295(4) of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint mainly alleged wrongdoing by the managing director and other directors directly involved, while the petitioner was shown only as an alternate director and practising advocate. His non-signatory status on the cheque and the absence of material showing active participation in the company's day-to-day affairs meant that a balance-sheet signature alone was insufficient to infer knowledge or impose vicarious liability. The limitation point was left open as a mixed question of law and fact. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287531