https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103768 SC held that jurisdiction under section 155 is summary in nature and "sufficient cause" must be tested against the Companies Act and Rules; omission means contradiction of what ought to have been done. A court should assess prima facie whether alleged complications or fraud genuinely preclude summary adjudication rather than routinely directing parties to seek leave to sue. Where documents are disputed or alleged forged, the court must examine whether those disputes truly fall outside rectification scope. The matter is remitted to the HC to reconsider in light of these principles. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Oct 2025 20:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103768 SC held that jurisdiction under section 155 is summary in nature and "sufficient cause" must be tested against the Companies Act and Rules; omission means contradiction of what ought to have been done. A court should assess prima facie whether alleged complications or fraud genuinely preclude summary adjudication rather than routinely directing parties to seek leave to sue. Where documents are disputed or alleged forged, the court must examine whether those disputes truly fall outside rectification scope. The matter is remitted to the HC to reconsider in light of these principles. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103768