https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84311 Petitioner, a director in respondent company, challenged complaint and summoning order against her u/ss 138 and 141 of NI Act for dishonour of cheque issued to complainant. HC held petitioner prima facie liable u/s 141 as being in charge of company's affairs despite not being signatory. Mere non-signatory status didn't absolve liability if requisites u/ss 138 and 141 met. MM rightly issued summons after observing prima facie case and non-payment despite demand notice. No illegality in summoning order to warrant quashing u/s 482 of Code. Petition dismissed. en-us Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:00:37 +0530 Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:00:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84311 Petitioner, a director in respondent company, challenged complaint and summoning order against her u/ss 138 and 141 of NI Act for dishonour of cheque issued to complainant. HC held petitioner prima facie liable u/s 141 as being in charge of company's affairs despite not being signatory. Mere non-signatory status didn't absolve liability if requisites u/ss 138 and 141 met. MM rightly issued summons after observing prima facie case and non-payment despite demand notice. No illegality in summoning order to warrant quashing u/s 482 of Code. Petition dismissed. Highlights Indian Laws Fri, 27 Dec 2024 09:00:37 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84311