<?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>Director Held Liable for Cheque Dishonor Due to Lack of Evidence of Non-Involvement in Company Operations.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61309</link>
    <description>Dishonor of Cheque - Vicarious liability on the Director of the company - involvement of the director (respondent No. 2) in the affars of the company or not - no material has been placed on record, much less of incontrovertible or unimpeachable nature, to establish that respondent No. 2 was in fact not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the accused company. Rather, despite the legal notice having been issued to respondent No. 2 as well, no reply was furnished on her behalf to the effect that she was not in-charge of or responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time. - no ground for quashing of the summoning order - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:30:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:30:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Director Held Liable for Cheque Dishonor Due to Lack of Evidence of Non-Involvement in Company Operations.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61309</link>
      <description>Dishonor of Cheque - Vicarious liability on the Director of the company - involvement of the director (respondent No. 2) in the affars of the company or not - no material has been placed on record, much less of incontrovertible or unimpeachable nature, to establish that respondent No. 2 was in fact not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the accused company. Rather, despite the legal notice having been issued to respondent No. 2 as well, no reply was furnished on her behalf to the effect that she was not in-charge of or responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time. - no ground for quashing of the summoning order - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:30:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>