<?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 (7) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774210</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 NIA against company directors in a dishonored cheque case. Two directors had resigned in 2015 and 2017, prior to cheque issuance in 2022, thus not liable under Section 141 NIA which requires persons to be in charge at time of offense. The company underwent insolvency proceedings with moratorium declared in 2019, transferring all powers to Resolution Professional. The court held that remaining directors ceased to have authority after moratorium, making subsequent cheques invalid. Criminal proceedings initiated after moratorium were not maintainable. Summoning orders were set aside and applications allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774210</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 NIA against company directors in a dishonored cheque case. Two directors had resigned in 2015 and 2017, prior to cheque issuance in 2022, thus not liable under Section 141 NIA which requires persons to be in charge at time of offense. The company underwent insolvency proceedings with moratorium declared in 2019, transferring all powers to Resolution Professional. The court held that remaining directors ceased to have authority after moratorium, making subsequent cheques invalid. Criminal proceedings initiated after moratorium were not maintainable. Summoning orders were set aside and applications allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>