<?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>2025 (3) TMI 838 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767452</link>
    <description>HC dismissed application in dishonour of cheque case. Respondent partner was made accused while partnership firm was not made party to proceedings. Court held that under Section 141 of N.I. Act, when company/firm commits offence, the entity must be arraigned as party before individual partners can be held vicariously liable. Absence of firm as party constitutes fatal procedural defect. Court relied on SC precedents establishing that vicarious liability cannot be fastened without making principal entity party to proceedings. Defect deemed incurable as statutory notice under Section 138 was not served on firm within prescribed 30-day period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 838 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767452</link>
      <description>HC dismissed application in dishonour of cheque case. Respondent partner was made accused while partnership firm was not made party to proceedings. Court held that under Section 141 of N.I. Act, when company/firm commits offence, the entity must be arraigned as party before individual partners can be held vicariously liable. Absence of firm as party constitutes fatal procedural defect. Court relied on SC precedents establishing that vicarious liability cannot be fastened without making principal entity party to proceedings. Defect deemed incurable as statutory notice under Section 138 was not served on firm within prescribed 30-day period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>