https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84276 The SC held that an authorized signatory of a company does not fall within the ambit of the expression "drawer" u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The expression "on an account maintained by him" in Section 138 refers to the account maintained by the drawer and not by an authorized signatory acting on behalf of the company. The scope of "any debt or other liability" in Section 138 is wide enough to cover any legally enforceable debt or liability, not necessarily between the drawer and payee. u/s 141, the company as the principal offender must be first held liable before extending vicarious liability to directors or persons in-charge. Since the accused was prosecuted in individual capacity and not as director, and the cheque was drawn on the company's account, the requirements of Section 138 were not met. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:45:40 +0530 Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:45:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84276 The SC held that an authorized signatory of a company does not fall within the ambit of the expression "drawer" u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The expression "on an account maintained by him" in Section 138 refers to the account maintained by the drawer and not by an authorized signatory acting on behalf of the company. The scope of "any debt or other liability" in Section 138 is wide enough to cover any legally enforceable debt or liability, not necessarily between the drawer and payee. u/s 141, the company as the principal offender must be first held liable before extending vicarious liability to directors or persons in-charge. Since the accused was prosecuted in individual capacity and not as director, and the cheque was drawn on the company's account, the requirements of Section 138 were not met. The appeal was dismissed. Highlights Indian Laws Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:45:40 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84276