https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399601 The court dismissed the petition challenging the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the petitioner, as the sole proprietor of the firm, could be prosecuted without implicating the firm separately. The court clarified that in a sole proprietorship, no separate legal identity exists apart from the proprietor, and no vicarious liability arises on another person. Therefore, the court found no defect in the complaint against the petitioner and dismissed the petition, stating no interference was warranted as there was no illegality in the impugned orders. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:30:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399601 The court dismissed the petition challenging the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the petitioner, as the sole proprietor of the firm, could be prosecuted without implicating the firm separately. The court clarified that in a sole proprietorship, no separate legal identity exists apart from the proprietor, and no vicarious liability arises on another person. Therefore, the court found no defect in the complaint against the petitioner and dismissed the petition, stating no interference was warranted as there was no illegality in the impugned orders. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399601