<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1292 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763712</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint contains clear, specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence; mere designation as a director is insufficient. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be invoked sparingly, but quashing is appropriate where the complaint, even on its face, lacks the essential ingredients of the offence or does not disclose a prima facie case. Where the accused had ceased to be a director before the cheques were drawn, was not a signatory, and there was no material showing control over day-to-day affairs, the complaint does not support liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2024 16:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1292 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763712</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint contains clear, specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence; mere designation as a director is insufficient. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be invoked sparingly, but quashing is appropriate where the complaint, even on its face, lacks the essential ingredients of the offence or does not disclose a prima facie case. Where the accused had ceased to be a director before the cheques were drawn, was not a signatory, and there was no material showing control over day-to-day affairs, the complaint does not support liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>