<?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>Director acquitted in dishonour cheque case as company liquidated before cheque issuance under Section 138/141</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89837</link>
    <description>HC dismissed appeal challenging acquittal in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Appellant failed to establish respondent&#039;s vicarious liability as director when company entered liquidation on 29.07.2013 per HC order, while impugned cheque was issued on 28.10.2013. Prosecution witnesses admitted company&#039;s liquidation and official liquidator&#039;s control over assets. Court held appellant failed to prove respondent&#039;s specific role in cheque issuance post-liquidation or his responsibility for company&#039;s business conduct at time of offence. Presumption of innocence favoured accused throughout trial. HC affirmed trial court&#039;s acquittal finding ingredients under Section 138/141 NI Act unproven against respondent who ceased directorship upon liquidation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:36:23 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:36:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=831968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Director acquitted in dishonour cheque case as company liquidated before cheque issuance under Section 138/141</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89837</link>
      <description>HC dismissed appeal challenging acquittal in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Appellant failed to establish respondent&#039;s vicarious liability as director when company entered liquidation on 29.07.2013 per HC order, while impugned cheque was issued on 28.10.2013. Prosecution witnesses admitted company&#039;s liquidation and official liquidator&#039;s control over assets. Court held appellant failed to prove respondent&#039;s specific role in cheque issuance post-liquidation or his responsibility for company&#039;s business conduct at time of offence. Presumption of innocence favoured accused throughout trial. HC affirmed trial court&#039;s acquittal finding ingredients under Section 138/141 NI Act unproven against respondent who ceased directorship upon liquidation.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:36:23 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>