<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (1) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416637</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot fasten vicarious criminal liability on non-signatory directors unless it specifically pleads that, at the relevant time, they were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. A bare assertion that they were involved in the company&#039;s affairs is insufficient. Magistrates must apply their mind to whether a prima facie case exists before issuing process; mechanical cognizance is not sustainable where the complaint lacks the necessary averment. On the facts stated, the summons issued against the petitioners could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2022 07:22:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416637</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot fasten vicarious criminal liability on non-signatory directors unless it specifically pleads that, at the relevant time, they were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. A bare assertion that they were involved in the company&#039;s affairs is insufficient. Magistrates must apply their mind to whether a prima facie case exists before issuing process; mechanical cognizance is not sustainable where the complaint lacks the necessary averment. On the facts stated, the summons issued against the petitioners could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>