Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A former director could not be prosecuted for alleged offences under the Companies Act, 2013 where the complaint contained only bare, generalized accusations and no specific averment linking him to the alleged fraudulent acts or false statements. The Court noted that he had resigned before the company began business operations, had not been charge-sheeted by either investigating agency on the same facts, and was named only as a former director. Mere prior association with the company was held insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings, so the special case was quashed. As the look out circular was founded on those proceedings and he was not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet, the circular also lacked basis and was quashed.
A former director could not be prosecuted for alleged offences under the Companies Act, 2013 where the complaint contained only bare, generalized accusations and no specific averment linking him to the alleged fraudulent acts or false statements. The Court noted that he had resigned before the company began business operations, had not been charge-sheeted by either investigating agency on the same facts, and was named only as a former director. Mere prior association with the company was held insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings, so the special case was quashed. As the look out circular was founded on those proceedings and he was not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet, the circular also lacked basis and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.