https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93338 The HC dismissed the petitions seeking quashing of the summoning orders under the NI Act, holding that the petitioner failed to produce unimpeachable material warranting exercise of Section 482 CrPC at the pre-trial stage. Allegations that the petitioner was a director and responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs at the time of issuance of the disputed cheques remain prima facie established by the complaint; subsequent resignation did not negate liability. The court reiterated that factual disputes regarding vicarious liability and managerial control under Sections 138/141 are inappropriate for Section 482 adjudication unless disproved by sterling evidence, and therefore declined to interfere with the trial court's process. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:09 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93338 The HC dismissed the petitions seeking quashing of the summoning orders under the NI Act, holding that the petitioner failed to produce unimpeachable material warranting exercise of Section 482 CrPC at the pre-trial stage. Allegations that the petitioner was a director and responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs at the time of issuance of the disputed cheques remain prima facie established by the complaint; subsequent resignation did not negate liability. The court reiterated that factual disputes regarding vicarious liability and managerial control under Sections 138/141 are inappropriate for Section 482 adjudication unless disproved by sterling evidence, and therefore declined to interfere with the trial court's process. Highlights Indian Laws Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:09 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93338