https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427666 The court held that the absence of the sole proprietary entity in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act rendered it defective, emphasizing strict compliance with legislative intent. It clarified that even a sole proprietary entity could be considered liable under Section 141, stressing the importance of arraigning such entities for a valid prosecution. The court quashed the complaint and summoning order, underscoring the necessity of adhering to statutory provisions in cases with penal implications. en-us Fri, 26 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Sep 2022 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427666 The court held that the absence of the sole proprietary entity in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act rendered it defective, emphasizing strict compliance with legislative intent. It clarified that even a sole proprietary entity could be considered liable under Section 141, stressing the importance of arraigning such entities for a valid prosecution. The court quashed the complaint and summoning order, underscoring the necessity of adhering to statutory provisions in cases with penal implications. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427666