https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429358 Proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not defeated merely because the company had been sold out, since dishonour of the cheque and failure to pay within the statutory period remained the operative basis of liability. However, vicarious criminal liability under section 141 could not be fastened on the Managing Director without specific averments that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time. A bare designation or omnibus allegation was insufficient, and the cognizance order against him was quashed, while the complaint was allowed to continue against the remaining accused. en-us Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Oct 2022 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429358 Proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not defeated merely because the company had been sold out, since dishonour of the cheque and failure to pay within the statutory period remained the operative basis of liability. However, vicarious criminal liability under section 141 could not be fastened on the Managing Director without specific averments that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time. A bare designation or omnibus allegation was insufficient, and the cognizance order against him was quashed, while the complaint was allowed to continue against the remaining accused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429358