https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111295 A complaint may proceed against company directors where it contains clear, specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs. At the stage of cognizance and summons, the court need only see material linking the accused to the company's business; a defence that some accused were only investors or had ceased to be directors cannot be accepted without evidence. Later correspondence and the balance sheet also supported continued association with the company, and the managing director was presumed to control its affairs. The challenge to the summoning order therefore failed. en-us Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111295 A complaint may proceed against company directors where it contains clear, specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs. At the stage of cognizance and summons, the court need only see material linking the accused to the company's business; a defence that some accused were only investors or had ceased to be directors cannot be accepted without evidence. Later correspondence and the balance sheet also supported continued association with the company, and the managing director was presumed to control its affairs. The challenge to the summoning order therefore failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111295