https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783698 Whether an appellate court can direct deposit under s.148 NI Act against a convicted director/authorised signatory when the company, though the principal offender under s.138, could not be proceeded against due to a legal impediment was examined. Applying prior rulings on vicarious liability under s.141 and the limited discretion under s.148, the SC held the HC erred in mechanically insisting on a 20% deposit without considering whether the appellant could be treated as the "drawer" and whether exceptional circumstances existed; the deposit condition was quashed and suspension of sentence restored on bond. Noting conflicting approaches on construing "drawer," the SC referred the interpretative question to a larger Bench. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783698 Whether an appellate court can direct deposit under s.148 NI Act against a convicted director/authorised signatory when the company, though the principal offender under s.138, could not be proceeded against due to a legal impediment was examined. Applying prior rulings on vicarious liability under s.141 and the limited discretion under s.148, the SC held the HC erred in mechanically insisting on a 20% deposit without considering whether the appellant could be treated as the "drawer" and whether exceptional circumstances existed; the deposit condition was quashed and suspension of sentence restored on bond. Noting conflicting approaches on construing "drawer," the SC referred the interpretative question to a larger Bench. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783698