In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that under Section 141 of the Negotiable…

In Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. ((2012) 5 SCC 661), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court settled the law under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (overruling Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 SCC 1) and held that the commission of an offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. Consequently, for maintaining a prosecution against directors or officers under Section 141, arraigning the company as an accused is imperative (sine qua non). By contrast, Narsing Das Tapadia v. Govardhan Das Partani ((2000) 7 SCC 183) and Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. ((1999) 3 SCC 1) relate to cognizance and computation of the limitation period under Section 142 of the Act.