ExamVeda
Login
Home

In which of the following case the Supreme Court held that...

This question belongs to Law Negotiable Instruments Act
Negotiable Instruments Act
?

In which of the following case the Supreme Court held that the persons who are sought to be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence under section 141 should be at the time the offfence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected w ith the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision?

Answer & Solution
Correct Answer: Option A
Let's discuss the solution. Join the discussion
Examveda
Question posted by Examveda
Community

Join the Discussion

No comments yet Be the first to discuss this question.
Keep Learning

Related Questions on Negotiable Instruments Act

The term 'legal representative' in section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
A. Does not include executors or administrator (Rama v. Praoin, AIR 1926 Mad 389) B. Includes executors or administrator (K. Subbanna v. K. Subbarayudu, AIR 1926 Mad 390) C. Includes executors but does not include administrators (P. Nayar v. T. Ramanna, AIR 1929 Mad 389) D. Includes only administrators but does not include executors (P. K. Pati v. Damodar Sahu, AIR 1953 Ori 179)
In the case of a promissory note which is not negotiable
A. Notice of dishonour is compulsory B. No notice of dishonour is necessary C. Negotiable Instruments Act is silent on this aspect D. Indorsement is necessary
The endorsement of a negotiable instrument is followed by delivery
A. Yes B. No C. Both (A) and (B) D. None of the above
'Truncated Cheque' is dealt within which section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
A. Section 5 B. Section 6 C. Section 7 D. Section 8
More Related Questions on Negotiable Instruments Act