<?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 (4) TMI 356 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768442</link>
    <description>Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes vicarious criminal liability only on persons against whom the complaint makes clear and specific averments showing how they were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time. Mere designation as a director is insufficient, and liability cannot be presumed for an independent non-executive director absent allegations linking him to the issuance or dishonour of the cheques. As the petitioner was neither shown to be a signatory nor connected with financial decision-making or day-to-day conduct, the summoning orders could not be sustained against him.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 08:28:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 356 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768442</link>
      <description>Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes vicarious criminal liability only on persons against whom the complaint makes clear and specific averments showing how they were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time. Mere designation as a director is insufficient, and liability cannot be presumed for an independent non-executive director absent allegations linking him to the issuance or dishonour of the cheques. As the petitioner was neither shown to be a signatory nor connected with financial decision-making or day-to-day conduct, the summoning orders could not be sustained against him.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>