<?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>2024 (4) TMI 953 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751772</link>
    <description>Delhi HC dismissed petition challenging discharge of respondents in dishonour of cheque case. Court held Section 141 NI Act creates vicarious liability only on persons in-charge of accused company or those who connived/were negligent, not on group companies. Corporate veil cannot be lifted in Section 138 cases as it creates criminal liability only on cheque drawer. Liability cannot extend to other corporate entities merely for being group companies. Petitioner failed to establish respondents were directors of accused company or persons in-charge of its business conduct, providing only LinkedIn profile as evidence which was insufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 953 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751772</link>
      <description>Delhi HC dismissed petition challenging discharge of respondents in dishonour of cheque case. Court held Section 141 NI Act creates vicarious liability only on persons in-charge of accused company or those who connived/were negligent, not on group companies. Corporate veil cannot be lifted in Section 138 cases as it creates criminal liability only on cheque drawer. Liability cannot extend to other corporate entities merely for being group companies. Petitioner failed to establish respondents were directors of accused company or persons in-charge of its business conduct, providing only LinkedIn profile as evidence which was insufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>