https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437516 In a cheque dishonour complaint, quashing of the summoning order was declined because the petitioner's claimed resignation as director before issuance and dishonour of the cheque was not established with certainty. Company liability under the cheque dishonour framework turns on whether a person was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, or whether consent, connivance, or neglect is shown. The resignation documents, MCA entries, and absence of a board resolution were insufficient to show, at the threshold, that she had ceased to be associated with the company's affairs. The disputed date and effectiveness of resignation, and her role in the company, were left for trial, and the summoning order was sustained. en-us Mon, 01 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 May 2023 21:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437516 In a cheque dishonour complaint, quashing of the summoning order was declined because the petitioner's claimed resignation as director before issuance and dishonour of the cheque was not established with certainty. Company liability under the cheque dishonour framework turns on whether a person was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, or whether consent, connivance, or neglect is shown. The resignation documents, MCA entries, and absence of a board resolution were insufficient to show, at the threshold, that she had ceased to be associated with the company's affairs. The disputed date and effectiveness of resignation, and her role in the company, were left for trial, and the summoning order was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437516