<?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>2020 (11) TMI 502 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400747</link>
    <description>In Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings, a statutory notice sent by post may be treated as duly served through the deeming rule in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act when it is properly addressed and no specific denial of receipt is pleaded. For vicarious liability of a company director under Section 141, the complaint must contain a clear averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business; such an averment was found sufficient at the cognizance stage. The court also treated objections about sleeping-partner status and underlying liability as matters not fit for threshold adjudication, and upheld the summons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:31:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 502 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400747</link>
      <description>In Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings, a statutory notice sent by post may be treated as duly served through the deeming rule in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act when it is properly addressed and no specific denial of receipt is pleaded. For vicarious liability of a company director under Section 141, the complaint must contain a clear averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business; such an averment was found sufficient at the cognizance stage. The court also treated objections about sleeping-partner status and underlying liability as matters not fit for threshold adjudication, and upheld the summons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>