<?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>2008 (2) TMI 959 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301520</link>
    <description>For prosecution under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must contain specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the firm&#039;s business, or that the offence was committed with her consent or knowledge. A partner&#039;s claim of retirement could not be conclusively tested in quash proceedings on the basis of unregistered reconstitution papers alone, and an unregistered firm required public notice of retirement under the Partnership Act to avoid liability to third parties. On the facts pleaded, the allegations against the partner were found vague and did not disclose any active role in the firm&#039;s business, so the proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:37:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 959 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301520</link>
      <description>For prosecution under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must contain specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the firm&#039;s business, or that the offence was committed with her consent or knowledge. A partner&#039;s claim of retirement could not be conclusively tested in quash proceedings on the basis of unregistered reconstitution papers alone, and an unregistered firm required public notice of retirement under the Partnership Act to avoid liability to third parties. On the facts pleaded, the allegations against the partner were found vague and did not disclose any active role in the firm&#039;s business, so the proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>