<?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 NI Act requires specific averments on a director&#039;s role; general allegations cannot sustain vicarious liability.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101593</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability of directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires strict compliance with the statutory conditions: the complaint must specifically aver how a director was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. General statements that directors managed day-to-day affairs are insufficient, and the complaint must also disclose who signed the dishonoured cheque. As the petition contained only general allegations and no specific role, participation, or cheque-signatory details, the court held that continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of process and quashed it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 141 NI Act requires specific averments on a director&#039;s role; general allegations cannot sustain vicarious liability.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101593</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability of directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires strict compliance with the statutory conditions: the complaint must specifically aver how a director was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business. General statements that directors managed day-to-day affairs are insufficient, and the complaint must also disclose who signed the dishonoured cheque. As the petition contained only general allegations and no specific role, participation, or cheque-signatory details, the court held that continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of process and quashed it.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>