https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303151 Specific averments that a director was Chairman, in charge of, and responsible for the company's business were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A disputed plea that he had resigned before the cheques were issued could not justify discharge at the preliminary stage, particularly where the resignation documents were treated as suspicious. The revisional court was not entitled to evaluate defence material as if deciding the case on merits. Proceedings against the director were restored, leaving the resignation defence to be tested at trial. en-us Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2022 15:33:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303151 Specific averments that a director was Chairman, in charge of, and responsible for the company's business were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A disputed plea that he had resigned before the cheques were issued could not justify discharge at the preliminary stage, particularly where the resignation documents were treated as suspicious. The revisional court was not entitled to evaluate defence material as if deciding the case on merits. Proceedings against the director were restored, leaving the resignation defence to be tested at trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303151