https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295504 In a company cheque-dishonour prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vicarious liability depends on specific averments that the director was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or that the offence occurred with consent, connivance, or neglect. A certified Form 32 showing resignation before issuance, presentation, dishonour, and expiry of the notice period was treated as authentic proof that the former director was no longer for the company when the offence was completed. Signing the cheque in a representative capacity did not, by itself, make him the personal drawer. The complaint and proceedings were quashed against the former director, while they continued against the company. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:41:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295504 In a company cheque-dishonour prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vicarious liability depends on specific averments that the director was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or that the offence occurred with consent, connivance, or neglect. A certified Form 32 showing resignation before issuance, presentation, dishonour, and expiry of the notice period was treated as authentic proof that the former director was no longer for the company when the offence was completed. Signing the cheque in a representative capacity did not, by itself, make him the personal drawer. The complaint and proceedings were quashed against the former director, while they continued against the company. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295504