MP High Court: Women Retain Reservation Benefits After Marriage if Caste is Recognized in Both States  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Must Prosecute Informants of False Firs, and IOs May Face Contempt if They Fail  ||  MP HP: Over-Age Candidate Cannot Claim Age Relaxation Due to Delay in Earlier Recruitment  ||  Kerala HC: Petrol Pump Licence is Automatically Cancelled on Lease Expiry Without Any Hearing  ||  MP HC: Trial Courts Cannot Grant Permanent Injunction in Title Suits Without Recovery of Possession  ||  MP High Court: Guardians Can be Liable For Minors Flying Kites With Chinese Manjha  ||  SC: Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, A Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree  ||  SC: RTE Act promotes fraternity and equality by children of judges and vendors studying together  ||  MP High Court: Aadhaar and Voter ID Cards are Not Definitive Proof of Date of Birth  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Second Marriage During Subsisting First Marriage Void Unless Custom Permits It    

COMPANY - Cheque Bounce Case Against Director: Must be Proved that Director Responsible for Company's Conduct - (11 Mar 2019)

COMPANY

Supreme Court has reiterated that, a 'cheque bounce' complaint against a Company and its Director, must contain a specific averment that Director was in charge of, and responsible for, conduct of company's business at the time when offence U/S- 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act was committed.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE AGAINST DIRECTOR  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved