<?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>Specific averments are essential to fasten vicarious liability on an independent director for cheque dishonour proceedings.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98117</link>
    <description>Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be fastened merely because a person is designated as a director; the complaint must contain specific averments showing how and in what manner the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time. General allegations that directors handled day-to-day affairs were insufficient where the accused was a non-executive independent director, was not a signatory to the dishonoured cheques, and no direct nexus with the transactions was pleaded. The summoning orders and criminal proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Specific averments are essential to fasten vicarious liability on an independent director for cheque dishonour proceedings.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98117</link>
      <description>Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be fastened merely because a person is designated as a director; the complaint must contain specific averments showing how and in what manner the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time. General allegations that directors handled day-to-day affairs were insufficient where the accused was a non-executive independent director, was not a signatory to the dishonoured cheques, and no direct nexus with the transactions was pleaded. The summoning orders and criminal proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>