https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415509 The court dismissed the application to quash proceedings against applicant nos. 1 and 2, as they were signatories of the dishonored cheque, holding them liable. However, the application was allowed for quashing proceedings against applicant no. 3, the Chairman, and Yogesh Shukla, the Managing Director, due to lack of specific allegations against them. The court emphasized the conditions for applying the second proviso to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and clarified that liability should be attributed to the Corporation alone, not its Managing Director, unless specific allegations are made. en-us Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Dec 2021 20:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415509 The court dismissed the application to quash proceedings against applicant nos. 1 and 2, as they were signatories of the dishonored cheque, holding them liable. However, the application was allowed for quashing proceedings against applicant no. 3, the Chairman, and Yogesh Shukla, the Managing Director, due to lack of specific allegations against them. The court emphasized the conditions for applying the second proviso to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and clarified that liability should be attributed to the Corporation alone, not its Managing Director, unless specific allegations are made. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415509