https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395094 A company officer described as an Executive Director in the promoter category could be summoned in a cheque dishonour prosecution where the complaint contained a basic averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business and joint liability for the dishonoured cheques. The court applied the settled rule under the Negotiable Instruments Act that such an averment is sufficient to attract process unless the accused produces unimpeachable material showing that he was not responsible at the relevant time. His unsupported claim of prior resignation was not enough, as no reliable material showed that it had taken effect before issuance and dishonour of the cheques. The summoning order was sustained. en-us Mon, 04 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2020 06:13:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395094 A company officer described as an Executive Director in the promoter category could be summoned in a cheque dishonour prosecution where the complaint contained a basic averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business and joint liability for the dishonoured cheques. The court applied the settled rule under the Negotiable Instruments Act that such an averment is sufficient to attract process unless the accused produces unimpeachable material showing that he was not responsible at the relevant time. His unsupported claim of prior resignation was not enough, as no reliable material showed that it had taken effect before issuance and dishonour of the cheques. The summoning order was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395094