https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102736 The court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the mere conviction of a director or managing director for any offense, regardless of its nature, is not sufficient to invoke Section 203(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The section could only be invoked for convictions involving fraud. The court emphasized the discretionary power to decide whether to restrain a director from management based on the specifics of each case, which was not properly exercised by the Magistrate in this instance. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:14:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102736 The court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the mere conviction of a director or managing director for any offense, regardless of its nature, is not sufficient to invoke Section 203(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The section could only be invoked for convictions involving fraud. The court emphasized the discretionary power to decide whether to restrain a director from management based on the specifics of each case, which was not properly exercised by the Magistrate in this instance. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 24 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102736