https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98265 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the penal provision under section 282(2)(b) of the Companies Act did not apply as the termination of the petitioner's directorship was not age-related but due to the rotation rule. The court rejected the argument that the board's note constituted an invalid appointment, as the term "appointment" implied "election." Consequently, the petitioner's revision case was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted, with any fine paid ordered to be refunded. en-us Tue, 09 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:14:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98265 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the penal provision under section 282(2)(b) of the Companies Act did not apply as the termination of the petitioner's directorship was not age-related but due to the rotation rule. The court rejected the argument that the board's note constituted an invalid appointment, as the term "appointment" implied "election." Consequently, the petitioner's revision case was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted, with any fine paid ordered to be refunded. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98265