https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104082 The court dismissed the revisions, upholding the lower court's order that Smt. Seethalakshmi, as a director, was liable for the company's non-compliance with statutory requirements. The court rejected her argument that no notice was served on her, stating it was a factual issue for trial. The contention of being singled out was dismissed as the other director was untraceable, making her the responsible director for compliance. Consequently, the revisions were dismissed, affirming the lower court's orders. en-us Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:43:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104082 The court dismissed the revisions, upholding the lower court's order that Smt. Seethalakshmi, as a director, was liable for the company's non-compliance with statutory requirements. The court rejected her argument that no notice was served on her, stating it was a factual issue for trial. The contention of being singled out was dismissed as the other director was untraceable, making her the responsible director for compliance. Consequently, the revisions were dismissed, affirming the lower court's orders. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104082