Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved