<?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>Section 141 vicarious liability needs specific factual averments; prosecution continued for linked office bearers, not for status-only allegations.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100188</link>
    <description>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity&#039;s affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 141 vicarious liability needs specific factual averments; prosecution continued for linked office bearers, not for status-only allegations.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100188</link>
      <description>Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity&#039;s affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>