https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101873 Section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires a present, jurisdictional satisfaction based on real and disclosed material that a company's affairs are being conducted prejudicially to the company or public interest; conjecture about possible future harm is insufficient. The power cannot be used to bypass or indirectly regulate a subject already governed by a special statutory regime, and where RBI directions were already regulating the deposit scheme and the company was acting in conformity with them, recourse to section 408 was impermissible. An order that relied on matters not disclosed in the show-cause notice also offended natural justice and could not stand. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:46:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101873 Section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires a present, jurisdictional satisfaction based on real and disclosed material that a company's affairs are being conducted prejudicially to the company or public interest; conjecture about possible future harm is insufficient. The power cannot be used to bypass or indirectly regulate a subject already governed by a special statutory regime, and where RBI directions were already regulating the deposit scheme and the company was acting in conformity with them, recourse to section 408 was impermissible. An order that relied on matters not disclosed in the show-cause notice also offended natural justice and could not stand. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101873