https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460949 Specific averments that a director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time are sufficient to sustain prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A claimed status as an independent non-executive director does not by itself defeat the complaint at the threshold, and supporting documents such as governance reports or Form 32 are not conclusive to negate the pleaded role at the summoning stage; that defence may be tested at trial. The fact that the director was not a cheque signatory or a party to the settlement likewise does not automatically absolve liability where the complaint alleges consent and responsibility for business conduct. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Mar 2025 18:58:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460949 Specific averments that a director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time are sufficient to sustain prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A claimed status as an independent non-executive director does not by itself defeat the complaint at the threshold, and supporting documents such as governance reports or Form 32 are not conclusive to negate the pleaded role at the summoning stage; that defence may be tested at trial. The fact that the director was not a cheque signatory or a party to the settlement likewise does not automatically absolve liability where the complaint alleges consent and responsibility for business conduct. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460949