https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100079 Leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was granted to continue prosecution of the company and its directors for alleged contravention of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the relevant Directions. Liability under section 58C(1) depends on proof that the company itself committed the contravention attracting section 58B. The Gujarat HC distinguished the earlier precedent relied on by the applicant because the proposed prosecution here was against both the company and its officers, and the unrebutted affidavit material showed a sufficient basis to permit continuation of the prosecution. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:40:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100079 Leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was granted to continue prosecution of the company and its directors for alleged contravention of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and the relevant Directions. Liability under section 58C(1) depends on proof that the company itself committed the contravention attracting section 58B. The Gujarat HC distinguished the earlier precedent relied on by the applicant because the proposed prosecution here was against both the company and its officers, and the unrebutted affidavit material showed a sufficient basis to permit continuation of the prosecution. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 24 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100079