https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403893 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, service of demand notice on the company and its responsible directors within the statutory timeline was treated as sufficient, so the limitation objection failed. The Court also held that a former director who was a signatory to some cheques could be proceeded against where the complaint contained specific averments about his role and the issuance of cheques. Questions about resignation before presentation, company control, and other defences were considered disputed factual issues for trial, and the summoning order and refusal to discharge were not interfered with. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Nov 2021 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403893 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, service of demand notice on the company and its responsible directors within the statutory timeline was treated as sufficient, so the limitation objection failed. The Court also held that a former director who was a signatory to some cheques could be proceeded against where the complaint contained specific averments about his role and the issuance of cheques. Questions about resignation before presentation, company control, and other defences were considered disputed factual issues for trial, and the summoning order and refusal to discharge were not interfered with. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403893