<?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>2023 (7) TMI 1107 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440834</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be fastened on a company secretary merely because of her designation. The complaint must specifically aver that the person was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business or otherwise falls within the statutory categories for liability. A designation as key managerial personnel under the Companies Act, 2013 does not by itself show control over day-to-day affairs or responsibility for the dishonoured cheque. In the absence of such averments, the complaint could not proceed against the petitioner, and the cheque dishonour proceedings were quashed only as against her.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:18:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=720736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1107 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440834</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be fastened on a company secretary merely because of her designation. The complaint must specifically aver that the person was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company&#039;s business or otherwise falls within the statutory categories for liability. A designation as key managerial personnel under the Companies Act, 2013 does not by itself show control over day-to-day affairs or responsibility for the dishonoured cheque. In the absence of such averments, the complaint could not proceed against the petitioner, and the cheque dishonour proceedings were quashed only as against her.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>