https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416076 Specific averments that a director was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs, involved in financial decision-making, and had agreed to guarantee repayment were treated as sufficient to make out a prima facie case under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, so the criminal complaints could not be quashed at the threshold. The defence that the cheques were issued only as security was held to be a matter for trial. The objection that a separate demand notice had not been served on the director was rejected because individual notice is not required where the company has already received notice. The complaints were therefore allowed to proceed. en-us Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:43:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416076 Specific averments that a director was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs, involved in financial decision-making, and had agreed to guarantee repayment were treated as sufficient to make out a prima facie case under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, so the criminal complaints could not be quashed at the threshold. The defence that the cheques were issued only as security was held to be a matter for trial. The objection that a separate demand notice had not been served on the director was rejected because individual notice is not required where the company has already received notice. The complaints were therefore allowed to proceed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416076