https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96810 Section 372(1) of the Companies Act, 1929 was treated as confined to relief in the particular proceedings already pending, so it could not displace a summons already before another court and relief was refused. Section 372(2) was applied to prospective liability for acting while disqualified as directors, and relief was granted because the directors acted honestly and reasonably, were unaware of the technical disqualification, could easily have cured the defect, and caused no loss to the company. The result was partial relief only, with costs against the petitioners. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96810 Section 372(1) of the Companies Act, 1929 was treated as confined to relief in the particular proceedings already pending, so it could not displace a summons already before another court and relief was refused. Section 372(2) was applied to prospective liability for acting while disqualified as directors, and relief was granted because the directors acted honestly and reasonably, were unaware of the technical disqualification, could easily have cured the defect, and caused no loss to the company. The result was partial relief only, with costs against the petitioners. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 06 Mar 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96810