<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (5) TMI 1058 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308589</link>
    <description>Security cheques issued in contractual dealings may still attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if they become enforceable on default; such questions are ordinarily not finally resolved at the quashing stage, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 operate for trial. Mere description as a director is insufficient for Section 141 liability unless there is specific material showing that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time. On that basis, proceedings continued against the first two petitioners but were quashed for the third petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:07:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=718819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 1058 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308589</link>
      <description>Security cheques issued in contractual dealings may still attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if they become enforceable on default; such questions are ordinarily not finally resolved at the quashing stage, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 operate for trial. Mere description as a director is insufficient for Section 141 liability unless there is specific material showing that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time. On that basis, proceedings continued against the first two petitioners but were quashed for the third petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>