https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295592 Where complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act specifically alleged a legally enforceable debt, issuance and dishonour of cheques, timely demand notice, and that the accused directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's business, a prima facie case under Section 141(1) was made out. The question whether the directors were actually in charge of the business was held to be a matter for evidence, not quashing. Section 141(2) was inapplicable because liability was not being fastened on the basis of consent, connivance or neglect in the absence of control; therefore, the complaints and summoning orders were not defective. en-us Wed, 13 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:34:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295592 Where complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act specifically alleged a legally enforceable debt, issuance and dishonour of cheques, timely demand notice, and that the accused directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's business, a prima facie case under Section 141(1) was made out. The question whether the directors were actually in charge of the business was held to be a matter for evidence, not quashing. Section 141(2) was inapplicable because liability was not being fastened on the basis of consent, connivance or neglect in the absence of control; therefore, the complaints and summoning orders were not defective. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295592