<?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 (7) TMI 1212 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755992</link>
    <description>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches only where material shows the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. A bare assertion that a person was a deemed or real owner is insufficient when the complaint and accompanying documents do not show him as a partner or authorised signatory of the firm. Where unimpeachable material indicates absence of partnership or control and there is no contrary evidence, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The summoning order and complaint were quashed against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:04:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1212 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755992</link>
      <description>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches only where material shows the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. A bare assertion that a person was a deemed or real owner is insufficient when the complaint and accompanying documents do not show him as a partner or authorised signatory of the firm. Where unimpeachable material indicates absence of partnership or control and there is no contrary evidence, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The summoning order and complaint were quashed against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>