<?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 1441 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788686</link>
    <description>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is penal and must be strictly construed. A complaint must contain clear, specific averments showing that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence; a mere assertion of directorship is insufficient. For a non-executive or Independent Director, liability cannot be inferred unless the complaint pleads direct involvement in the business or the transaction. On the pleaded facts, general allegations of day-to-day responsibility were unsupported, while the accused was an Independent Director and not a cheque signatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:52:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1441 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788686</link>
      <description>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is penal and must be strictly construed. A complaint must contain clear, specific averments showing that a director was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the time of the offence; a mere assertion of directorship is insufficient. For a non-executive or Independent Director, liability cannot be inferred unless the complaint pleads direct involvement in the business or the transaction. On the pleaded facts, general allegations of day-to-day responsibility were unsupported, while the accused was an Independent Director and not a cheque signatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>