https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761618 Delhi HC quashed proceedings against a director under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had resigned as director before the cheque dishonour occurred. The court held that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires the accused to be in charge of company business at the time of dishonour, not merely during earlier transactions. Since the petitioner was not a director when the cheque was dishonoured, issued, or when demand notice was served, no liability could be established despite earlier involvement in the underlying agreement. en-us Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:26:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761618 Delhi HC quashed proceedings against a director under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had resigned as director before the cheque dishonour occurred. The court held that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires the accused to be in charge of company business at the time of dishonour, not merely during earlier transactions. Since the petitioner was not a director when the cheque was dishonoured, issued, or when demand notice was served, no liability could be established despite earlier involvement in the underlying agreement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761618