Supreme Court: Marking a Document as an Exhibit Does Not Prove its Contents  ||  Supreme Court: Unpaid Consideration Alone Does Not Invalidate a Sale Deed  ||  Bombay HC: Questioning Other Varsities' Degrees Could Cause 'Anarchy and Chaos' in Education System  ||  Allahabad High Court: Regularization Claim Survives Employee’s Death Through Legal Heirs  ||  Allahabad HC: Advocates Failing AIBE Within 2 Years of Provisional Enrolment Can’t Continue Practice  ||  Bombay High Court Directs BCI to Scrutinise and Clear Pending Law College Affiliation Approvals  ||  J&K HC: Circulating WhatsApp Message on Local COVID Cases Does Not Attract Section 505 IPC  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training    

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