https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110212 The court dismissed the petition under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, finding that the petitioners, as directors of M/s. Fancy Stones (India) Limited, failed to prove their lack of involvement in the company's management. The court rejected claims of RIICO's management takeover and emphasized the directors' duty to comply with legal obligations. Despite the petitioners' arguments about their limited role and inability to meet legal requirements, the court held that their age or lack of day-to-day involvement did not excuse them from their responsibilities, leading to the dismissal of the petition. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:13:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110212 The court dismissed the petition under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, finding that the petitioners, as directors of M/s. Fancy Stones (India) Limited, failed to prove their lack of involvement in the company's management. The court rejected claims of RIICO's management takeover and emphasized the directors' duty to comply with legal obligations. Despite the petitioners' arguments about their limited role and inability to meet legal requirements, the court held that their age or lack of day-to-day involvement did not excuse them from their responsibilities, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110212