https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101140 Complaints that omit the statutory averment required to show absence of other company officers cannot support imposing director liability under the Companies Act provision read with the related director liability clause; the petitions failed to allege absence of managing agent, secretaries, treasurers, managing director or manager, so the condition precedent for treating directors as solely liable was not established on the face of the complaints, and the revisional challenge to the magistrate's discharges was dismissed with the discharges upheld. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:24:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101140 Complaints that omit the statutory averment required to show absence of other company officers cannot support imposing director liability under the Companies Act provision read with the related director liability clause; the petitions failed to allege absence of managing agent, secretaries, treasurers, managing director or manager, so the condition precedent for treating directors as solely liable was not established on the face of the complaints, and the revisional challenge to the magistrate's discharges was dismissed with the discharges upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101140