https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108346 A shareholder was held to have locus standi to challenge a compounding order because the order affected the statutory complaint mechanism available to shareholders. Section 621A(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as conferring an independent power on the Company Law Board to compound specified offences before or after prosecution, while section 621A(7) gives the criminal court a separate power to compound after prosecution is instituted; prior permission of the criminal court was not required. The order was also upheld as not being vitiated for want of reasons, since its basis was discernible from the record. en-us Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:10:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108346 A shareholder was held to have locus standi to challenge a compounding order because the order affected the statutory complaint mechanism available to shareholders. Section 621A(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as conferring an independent power on the Company Law Board to compound specified offences before or after prosecution, while section 621A(7) gives the criminal court a separate power to compound after prosecution is instituted; prior permission of the criminal court was not required. The order was also upheld as not being vitiated for want of reasons, since its basis was discernible from the record. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108346