<?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 (8) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441620</link>
    <description>Service of the statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a condition precedent for maintaining the complaint, and the complaint failed where the pleadings and affidavit proceeded on non-service. Vicarious liability of directors under Section 141(1) arises only on specific averments that, at the time of the offence, they were in charge of and responsible to the company for its business; general assertions of management, day-to-day involvement, or joint liability are insufficient. As the appellants were not signatories to the cheques and lacked the necessary pleaded role, the complaints were quashed insofar as they concerned them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441620</link>
      <description>Service of the statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a condition precedent for maintaining the complaint, and the complaint failed where the pleadings and affidavit proceeded on non-service. Vicarious liability of directors under Section 141(1) arises only on specific averments that, at the time of the offence, they were in charge of and responsible to the company for its business; general assertions of management, day-to-day involvement, or joint liability are insufficient. As the appellants were not signatories to the cheques and lacked the necessary pleaded role, the complaints were quashed insofar as they concerned them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>