TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court consolidates cases on Companies Act Section 212(6), grants interim protection to petitioner.</h1> <h3>Vijay Shukla Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office</h3> The Supreme Court consolidated the case regarding the validity of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 with related cases. The petitioner, not ... Validity of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Not punishable for offence of fraud punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 - appellant is only a signatory to financial documents pertaining to the company - HELD THAT:- The High Court has categorically noted in paragraph 49 of the impugned judgment that the petitioner is not accused of having committed the offence of fraud punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. He is only a signatory to financial documents pertaining to the company - The nuances of the arguments of the prosecution can be considered at an appropriate stage. Further, it is not in dispute that the co-accused have been granted interim protection who are charged with the offence u/s 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. It is deemed appropriate to grant interim protection to the present petitioner until disposal of the main matter. Issues: Validity of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013; Granting interim protection to the petitioner.Validity of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013:The Supreme Court noted that the validity of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 was already under scrutiny in connected cases. The Court decided that this matter should be consolidated and heard together with the related cases. In the present case, it was highlighted that the petitioner had not been accused of committing fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner was identified as a signatory to financial documents of the company, and the Court took note of the High Court's observation in this regard. The Court acknowledged that the prosecution's arguments would be examined at the appropriate stage. Additionally, it was acknowledged that the co-accused individuals facing charges under Section 447 had been granted interim protection. Consequently, the Court deemed it fit to provide interim protection to the petitioner until the main matter was resolved. However, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with any further investigation and surrender their passport to the Registry within a week, to be held until the main matter's conclusion.Granting interim protection to the petitioner:The Supreme Court, after considering the specifics of the case, decided to grant interim protection to the petitioner until the main matter was finalized. This decision was made based on the petitioner not being accused of fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, but only being a signatory to financial documents. The Court also took into account that the co-accused individuals facing charges under Section 447 had been granted interim protection. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must cooperate with any further investigation if required and surrender their passport to the Registry within a week, where it would remain until the main matter was concluded.
TaxTMI 
