<?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>Ex-director not liable for company cheque bounce; resignation before offense absolves vicarious liability u/s 141.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83079</link>
    <description>Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with vicarious liability for offenses committed by companies u/s 138 (dishonor of cheques). The key points are: Section 141 is a penal provision that must be strictly construed. Liability under this section depends on the role played by the person in the company&#039;s affairs, not merely their designation. To attract liability, the person must have been in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s conduct at the time of the offense&#039;s commission. Merely being a director or having some association with the company is insufficient. The complaint must specify the accused&#039;s role and how they were responsible for the company&#039;s conduct. In this case, the petitioner had resi.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:26:29 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:26:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Ex-director not liable for company cheque bounce; resignation before offense absolves vicarious liability u/s 141.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83079</link>
      <description>Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with vicarious liability for offenses committed by companies u/s 138 (dishonor of cheques). The key points are: Section 141 is a penal provision that must be strictly construed. Liability under this section depends on the role played by the person in the company&#039;s affairs, not merely their designation. To attract liability, the person must have been in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s conduct at the time of the offense&#039;s commission. Merely being a director or having some association with the company is insufficient. The complaint must specify the accused&#039;s role and how they were responsible for the company&#039;s conduct. In this case, the petitioner had resi.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:26:29 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>