<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1240 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788485</link>
    <description>A cheque issued as security can still attract Section 138 prosecution if, by the date of presentation, the underlying liability has become legally enforceable. The label attached at issuance does not control; the decisive factor is whether a recoverable debt existed when the cheque was presented, and statutory presumptions apply to a voluntarily handed over signed cheque unless rebutted at trial. For director liability under Section 141, the complaint must contain specific averments that the persons concerned were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. Specific allegations of active involvement, together with the managing director&#039;s cheque signature, were treated as sufficient to permit trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1240 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788485</link>
      <description>A cheque issued as security can still attract Section 138 prosecution if, by the date of presentation, the underlying liability has become legally enforceable. The label attached at issuance does not control; the decisive factor is whether a recoverable debt existed when the cheque was presented, and statutory presumptions apply to a voluntarily handed over signed cheque unless rebutted at trial. For director liability under Section 141, the complaint must contain specific averments that the persons concerned were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. Specific allegations of active involvement, together with the managing director&#039;s cheque signature, were treated as sufficient to permit trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>