SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

SC: Cannot Direct Company’s Authorized Signatory to Pay Interim Compensation - (26 Jul 2024)

BANKING

SC has stated that authorized signatories can bind company through their actions but they do not merge their legal status with that of the company. This distinction supports interpretation that drawer under Section 143A of NI Act refers specifically to issuer of cheque, not authorized signatories.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES   S. 143A OF NI ACT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved