https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427901 A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be read as a whole, and specific averments that partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's day-to-day business, and that the cheque was issued with their knowledge or consent, are ordinarily sufficient to fasten vicarious liability and permit process to issue. Hypertechnical scrutiny is unwarranted at the threshold, and quashing is justified only where unimpeachable material shows the accused could not have been concerned with the cheque. Mere bald denial, without a reply to the statutory notice or supporting material, did not displace the pleaded basis for proceeding. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427901 A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be read as a whole, and specific averments that partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's day-to-day business, and that the cheque was issued with their knowledge or consent, are ordinarily sufficient to fasten vicarious liability and permit process to issue. Hypertechnical scrutiny is unwarranted at the threshold, and quashing is justified only where unimpeachable material shows the accused could not have been concerned with the cheque. Mere bald denial, without a reply to the statutory notice or supporting material, did not displace the pleaded basis for proceeding. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427901