https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107985 A complaint alleging contravention of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be quashed at the threshold where the accused company's claim to exemption as a non-banking financial company depended on disputed facts about its status and the nature of the deposit scheme. Those matters required proof and could not be decided on bare assertions in quashing proceedings. The Registrar of Companies was also held competent to launch the complaint because section 621 expressly authorises prosecution by the Registrar, and the cited notification did not make other named officers the exclusive complainants. The challenge to maintainability therefore failed and the prosecution was allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:08:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107985 A complaint alleging contravention of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be quashed at the threshold where the accused company's claim to exemption as a non-banking financial company depended on disputed facts about its status and the nature of the deposit scheme. Those matters required proof and could not be decided on bare assertions in quashing proceedings. The Registrar of Companies was also held competent to launch the complaint because section 621 expressly authorises prosecution by the Registrar, and the cited notification did not make other named officers the exclusive complainants. The challenge to maintainability therefore failed and the prosecution was allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107985