<?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 (3) TMI 926 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419888</link>
    <description>Criminal complaint proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Penal Code may be quashed where the complaint contains no specific averments showing how each accused was responsible for the firm&#039;s business or otherwise liable. The High Court examined a cheque dishonour prosecution and held that general allegations were insufficient to fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially where one petitioner was not shown as partner, employee, agent or manager, and another claimed retirement before the cheque transactions. The Court also treated the absence of particulars on who signed the cheques and each petitioner&#039;s role as fatal, and quashed the summons and proceedings for lack of a prima facie foundation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:37:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 926 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419888</link>
      <description>Criminal complaint proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Penal Code may be quashed where the complaint contains no specific averments showing how each accused was responsible for the firm&#039;s business or otherwise liable. The High Court examined a cheque dishonour prosecution and held that general allegations were insufficient to fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially where one petitioner was not shown as partner, employee, agent or manager, and another claimed retirement before the cheque transactions. The Court also treated the absence of particulars on who signed the cheques and each petitioner&#039;s role as fatal, and quashed the summons and proceedings for lack of a prima facie foundation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>