Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Disqualification of the petitioners as Directors - repayment of deposits - In view of the exemption under the 1975 Rules, more specifically Rules 2(b)(ix) and (xi) of the same, no liability within the contemplation of Sections 164 and 167 could have been imposed on the Company and/or the petitioners - the disqualifications envisaged under Section 164 and Section 167 of the Act were not applicable to the petitioners and, as such, the decision disqualifying the petitioners' DIN and the consequential vacation of office were illegal and bad in the eye of law. - HC
Disqualification of the petitioners as Directors - repayment of deposits - In view of the exemption under the 1975 Rules, more specifically Rules 2(b)(ix) and (xi) of the same, no liability within the contemplation of Sections 164 and 167 could have been imposed on the Company and/or the petitioners - the disqualifications envisaged under Section 164 and Section 167 of the Act were not applicable to the petitioners and, as such, the decision disqualifying the petitioners' DIN and the consequential vacation of office were illegal and bad in the eye of law. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
