<?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>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint and supporting material show that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the drawer company&#039;s business, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Mere association with the same business group, or assertions that one company was a branch or sales wing of another, is insufficient without specific foundational averments. On the facts described, the pleadings did not establish control or managerial responsibility over the drawer company, so summons against the respondents could not be sustained.</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>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint and supporting material show that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the drawer company&#039;s business, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Mere association with the same business group, or assertions that one company was a branch or sales wing of another, is insufficient without specific foundational averments. On the facts described, the pleadings did not establish control or managerial responsibility over the drawer company, so summons against the respondents could not be sustained.</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>