TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition seeking prosecution for perjury under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained when the underlying disputes, including the genuineness of the impugned meeting minutes, were already required to be adjudicated by the NCLT pursuant to the Supreme Court's consent order.
Analysis: The relief sought in the petition was intrinsically connected with the validity and genuineness of the AGM minutes and related company-law controversies pending before the NCLT. The Supreme Court had directed that the company petition and the connected Section 340 application be decided by the CLB/NCLT and had expressly directed that the High Court need not proceed further with the connected criminal miscellaneous proceedings. In that setting, any adjudication in the present petition would have overlapped with issues already sub judice before the NCLT and would have been inconsistent with the course charted by the Supreme Court. The Court therefore declined to examine the merits and held that the petitioner could approach the NCLT in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The petition was not entertained at this stage and the petitioner was relegated to pursue the remedy before the NCLT.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
