<?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>2020 (9) TMI 1314 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458412</link>
    <description>Criminal liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise from mere status as a partner; the complaint must contain clear and specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the firm&#039;s business at the time of the offence. Where the partner was not a signatory to the cheque, the partnership deed described him as a non-working partner, and the complaint lacked foundational allegations about his role in the transaction or day-to-day business, the prosecution could not be sustained. The process order was therefore treated as unreasoned and the complaint was found to disclose no prima facie offence against the applicant, resulting in quashing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:09:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 1314 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458412</link>
      <description>Criminal liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise from mere status as a partner; the complaint must contain clear and specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the firm&#039;s business at the time of the offence. Where the partner was not a signatory to the cheque, the partnership deed described him as a non-working partner, and the complaint lacked foundational allegations about his role in the transaction or day-to-day business, the prosecution could not be sustained. The process order was therefore treated as unreasoned and the complaint was found to disclose no prima facie offence against the applicant, resulting in quashing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>