https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101800 The court declined to grant relief to the director under section 633(2) of the Companies Act for non-compliance with sections 210 and 220. The judge emphasized directors' duty to act honestly and reasonably, stating that directors cannot automatically seek immunity from legal consequences. Reasons provided for non-compliance were deemed insufficient, with the court highlighting that issues with another company's accounts should not affect obligations. The judge rejected arguments regarding the director's status as an "officer in default," indicating potential prosecution proceedings for knowledge or connivance with the default. The petition was dismissed without costs, directing the directors to address liabilities through legal proceedings by the Registrar of Companies. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:57:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101800 The court declined to grant relief to the director under section 633(2) of the Companies Act for non-compliance with sections 210 and 220. The judge emphasized directors' duty to act honestly and reasonably, stating that directors cannot automatically seek immunity from legal consequences. Reasons provided for non-compliance were deemed insufficient, with the court highlighting that issues with another company's accounts should not affect obligations. The judge rejected arguments regarding the director's status as an "officer in default," indicating potential prosecution proceedings for knowledge or connivance with the default. The petition was dismissed without costs, directing the directors to address liabilities through legal proceedings by the Registrar of Companies. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 17 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101800