https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301203 The court allowed the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 750 of 2000, as he was not in charge of the company at the time of the offense and had resigned before the dishonor of the cheques. The judgment reaffirmed that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires individuals to be responsible for the company's affairs at the relevant time of the offense. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Mar 2022 10:13:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301203 The court allowed the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 750 of 2000, as he was not in charge of the company at the time of the offense and had resigned before the dishonor of the cheques. The judgment reaffirmed that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires individuals to be responsible for the company's affairs at the relevant time of the offense. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301203