https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109331 The circular was challenged on the ground that it purported to alter the proviso to section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956 by stating that a company employing a whole-time company secretary need not obtain a compliance certificate from a practising company secretary. The respondents maintained that the circular merely removed an anomaly and reflected legislative intent, while also suggesting that a general exemption notification under section 637A could be considered as an alternative. No final adjudication on the validity of the circular was recorded, as time was sought for instructions and the matter was directed to be listed on the next date. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:48:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109331 The circular was challenged on the ground that it purported to alter the proviso to section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956 by stating that a company employing a whole-time company secretary need not obtain a compliance certificate from a practising company secretary. The respondents maintained that the circular merely removed an anomaly and reflected legislative intent, while also suggesting that a general exemption notification under section 637A could be considered as an alternative. No final adjudication on the validity of the circular was recorded, as time was sought for instructions and the matter was directed to be listed on the next date. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109331