Bom. HC Refuses to Interfere with Mumbai University’s Decision to Cancel Admission of Student  ||  J&K HC: At Stage of Deciding Interim App., Trial Courts should Avoid Giving Observation on Merit of C  ||  Del HC: Furnishing Grounds of Arrest to Arrestee an Hour before Remand Isn’t Due Compliance of S. 50  ||  Ker. HC: Procee. against Subsequent Doctor Unwarranted if Initial Doctor has Reported POCSO Offence  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Must Primarily Decide Construction of Terms of Contract  ||  Madras High Court: Can’t Use ‘Freedom of Press’ to Tarnish Reputation  ||  SC Dismisses Plea Seeking Prospective App. of Judgment allowing Interest for NH Land Acquisitions  ||  SC Restrains Union/States from Reducing Forest Land Unless Compensatory Land is Provided  ||  Supreme Court Pulls up Assam Govt. for Not Deporting Persons Declared as Foreigners  ||  SC: Can’t Dismiss Appeals of Accused & Victims under NIA Act on Ground of Delay beyond 90 Days    

SC: When Company Isn’t Added as Accused the Director Who Signed Cheque is Not Liable for Dishonour - (23 Dec 2024)

CRIMINAL

Supreme Court while upholding the acquittal of a man convicted for dishonoured cheque, has observed that under Section 138 of NI Act authorised signatory of a company cannot be held liable for dishonour of a cheque drawn on company's account unless the company is arraigned as the principal accused.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   DISHONOURED CHEQUE   AUTHORISED SIGNATORY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved