<?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 (11) TMI 1809 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309792</link>
    <description>The court analyzed liability under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding a dishonored cheque issued by a company. It clarified that penal liability primarily lies with the drawer under section 138, while section 141 establishes constructive liability for individuals associated with the company. The court emphasized strict compliance with the conditions for extending liability under section 141 and limited vicarious liability to those directly involved in the company&#039;s affairs at the time of the offense. Consequently, the court allowed the revisional application, quashing proceedings against the petitioners but directing the trial to proceed against other accused persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2023 16:59:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1809 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309792</link>
      <description>The court analyzed liability under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding a dishonored cheque issued by a company. It clarified that penal liability primarily lies with the drawer under section 138, while section 141 establishes constructive liability for individuals associated with the company. The court emphasized strict compliance with the conditions for extending liability under section 141 and limited vicarious liability to those directly involved in the company&#039;s affairs at the time of the offense. Consequently, the court allowed the revisional application, quashing proceedings against the petitioners but directing the trial to proceed against other accused persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>