https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425557 In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that quashing was not warranted merely because the cheque was described as issued in the name of a firm and the firm was not initially arraigned as an accused. Section 141 creates vicarious liability for offences committed by a company, including a firm, only where the statutory requirements are satisfied, but that issue could not be finally determined at the threshold on the pleadings alone. The Court held that the accused's defence and the nature of the transaction could not be examined in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, and that the firm could be considered for impleadment during trial if evidence justified it. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jul 2022 08:39:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425557 In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that quashing was not warranted merely because the cheque was described as issued in the name of a firm and the firm was not initially arraigned as an accused. Section 141 creates vicarious liability for offences committed by a company, including a firm, only where the statutory requirements are satisfied, but that issue could not be finally determined at the threshold on the pleadings alone. The Court held that the accused's defence and the nature of the transaction could not be examined in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, and that the firm could be considered for impleadment during trial if evidence justified it. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425557