<?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 (5) TMI 900 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422640</link>
    <description>Where a cheque is drawn on a company account, the company is treated as the drawer for purposes of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and statutory notice must ordinarily be issued to it as a condition precedent to prosecution. Vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the signatory or another connected person unless the company is properly arraigned and served in accordance with law. As the cheque in question bore the company&#039;s name as account holder and no valid notice was served on the company, a complaint against the respondent alone was held not maintainable, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2022 08:59:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=679623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 900 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422640</link>
      <description>Where a cheque is drawn on a company account, the company is treated as the drawer for purposes of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and statutory notice must ordinarily be issued to it as a condition precedent to prosecution. Vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the signatory or another connected person unless the company is properly arraigned and served in accordance with law. As the cheque in question bore the company&#039;s name as account holder and no valid notice was served on the company, a complaint against the respondent alone was held not maintainable, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>