<?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 (9) TMI 103 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757859</link>
    <description>Section 138 prosecution for cheque dishonour cannot be sustained against an authorised signatory alone where the company or proprietorship concern on whose behalf the cheque was issued is not arraigned as an accused. Vicarious liability under Section 141 applies only when the company itself is prosecuted, so a complaint and summoning order issued solely against the signatory were legally untenable. The complaint and summoning order were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2024 18:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 103 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757859</link>
      <description>Section 138 prosecution for cheque dishonour cannot be sustained against an authorised signatory alone where the company or proprietorship concern on whose behalf the cheque was issued is not arraigned as an accused. Vicarious liability under Section 141 applies only when the company itself is prosecuted, so a complaint and summoning order issued solely against the signatory were legally untenable. The complaint and summoning order were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>