https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101510 The court upheld the conviction and sentence against petitioner No. 1 under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. However, it set aside the conviction against petitioners 2 to 4 due to insufficient evidence of their knowing default as directors. The Assistant Registrar of Companies was deemed competent to file the complaint, relying on precedent. The admissibility of documentary evidence was questioned, with the court highlighting the lack of personal knowledge in the evidence provided. The revision petition was partially allowed, with fines realized from petitioners 2 to 4 to be refunded. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:24:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101510 The court upheld the conviction and sentence against petitioner No. 1 under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. However, it set aside the conviction against petitioners 2 to 4 due to insufficient evidence of their knowing default as directors. The Assistant Registrar of Companies was deemed competent to file the complaint, relying on precedent. The admissibility of documentary evidence was questioned, with the court highlighting the lack of personal knowledge in the evidence provided. The revision petition was partially allowed, with fines realized from petitioners 2 to 4 to be refunded. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 12 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101510