<?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>Vicarious liability for company cheque dishonour requires specific allegations and cannot arise solely from former directorship.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102725</link>
    <description>Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not impose automatic vicarious liability on a director merely because of directorship. A cheque-dishonour complaint must specifically allege that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business when the offence occurred, or that it resulted from that person&#039;s consent, connivance or neglect. General allegations are inadequate, particularly where the person neither signed the cheques nor remained a director when they were issued and dishonoured. Statutory records establishing resignation before issuance of the cheques negate such liability, and continuation of proceedings in those circumstances constitutes abuse of process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:38:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Vicarious liability for company cheque dishonour requires specific allegations and cannot arise solely from former directorship.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102725</link>
      <description>Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not impose automatic vicarious liability on a director merely because of directorship. A cheque-dishonour complaint must specifically allege that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business when the offence occurred, or that it resulted from that person&#039;s consent, connivance or neglect. General allegations are inadequate, particularly where the person neither signed the cheques nor remained a director when they were issued and dishonoured. Statutory records establishing resignation before issuance of the cheques negate such liability, and continuation of proceedings in those circumstances constitutes abuse of process.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:38:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>