<?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>1999 (9) TMI 1000 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301225</link>
    <description>For liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, no separate Section 138 notice is required to each person sought to be made vicariously liable once notice is issued to the drawer company and its authorised signatory. The complaint was also sufficient because it contained factual averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, including a specific role in seeking time for payment and assuring funds. In quashing proceedings, such averments are not to be tested hyper-technically; the issue of actual responsibility is for evidence at trial. The criminal proceedings were therefore allowed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2022 18:24:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 1000 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301225</link>
      <description>For liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, no separate Section 138 notice is required to each person sought to be made vicariously liable once notice is issued to the drawer company and its authorised signatory. The complaint was also sufficient because it contained factual averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business, including a specific role in seeking time for payment and assuring funds. In quashing proceedings, such averments are not to be tested hyper-technically; the issue of actual responsibility is for evidence at trial. The criminal proceedings were therefore allowed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>