https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458068 A complaint invoking vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must specifically plead that the director or additional director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; a mere designation or general assertion of day-to-day involvement is insufficient. On that basis, the proceeding against the petitioners was quashed for want of foundational averments. The court also treated exemption from personal attendance as workable through counsel for recording plea and examination under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while preserving liberty to withdraw that privilege if counsel's absence or non-participation caused delay. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Oct 2024 07:30:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458068 A complaint invoking vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must specifically plead that the director or additional director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; a mere designation or general assertion of day-to-day involvement is insufficient. On that basis, the proceeding against the petitioners was quashed for want of foundational averments. The court also treated exemption from personal attendance as workable through counsel for recording plea and examination under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while preserving liberty to withdraw that privilege if counsel's absence or non-participation caused delay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458068