<?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>Ex-director cleared of cheque dishonor charges due to lack of specific allegations and proven resignation before offense.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75847</link>
    <description>Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of Director of the Company - The petitioner, a former non-executive additional director of the accused company, contended that they had resigned before the offense and that the complaint lacked specific allegations regarding their involvement. The court found the petitioner&#039;s resignation supported by documentary evidence and observed deficiencies in the complaint&#039;s averments. Referring to legal precedents, it emphasized the need for specific allegations to establish liability. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint against the petitioner, citing it as an abuse of the legal process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:14:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:14:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Ex-director cleared of cheque dishonor charges due to lack of specific allegations and proven resignation before offense.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75847</link>
      <description>Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of Director of the Company - The petitioner, a former non-executive additional director of the accused company, contended that they had resigned before the offense and that the complaint lacked specific allegations regarding their involvement. The court found the petitioner&#039;s resignation supported by documentary evidence and observed deficiencies in the complaint&#039;s averments. Referring to legal precedents, it emphasized the need for specific allegations to establish liability. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint against the petitioner, citing it as an abuse of the legal process.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:14:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>