Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Partner Not Automatically Liable for Company's Bounced Cheque Without Direct Proof of Consent or Involvement

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HC held that mere mention of a designated partner as key management personnel is insufficient to establish vicarious liability under Sections 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint failed to demonstrate prima facie liability, particularly when the partner specifically denied involvement and LLP agreement clauses required explicit consent for financial transactions. The partner's email reply denying responsibility, submitted before complaint filing, further undermined allegations. Given inadequate statutory compliance and lack of substantive evidence, the criminal complaint against the petitioner was quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Revision application allowed.....