https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312627 The HC quashed the summoning order against the petitioner, a former director, in criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court emphasized the necessity for specific allegations to establish the director's knowledge or involvement. The petitioner's role as an independent nominee director was acknowledged, and the absence of direct involvement led to the dismissal of vicarious liability claims. The judgment underscored that mere directorship does not imply liability without evidence of consent or connivance in the offense. The court's interpretation of Sections 141 and 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013, was pivotal in exonerating the petitioner. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:45:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312627 The HC quashed the summoning order against the petitioner, a former director, in criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court emphasized the necessity for specific allegations to establish the director's knowledge or involvement. The petitioner's role as an independent nominee director was acknowledged, and the absence of direct involvement led to the dismissal of vicarious liability claims. The judgment underscored that mere directorship does not imply liability without evidence of consent or connivance in the offense. The court's interpretation of Sections 141 and 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013, was pivotal in exonerating the petitioner. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312627