https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111371 The court dismissed the review petition, ruling that despite the first respondent's disqualification, he could not be forced to vacate his directorial position as he was protected under section 283(2) of the Companies Act until the appeal process concluded. The judgment emphasized the distinction between disqualifying a person from appointment as a director and causing the cessation of office for an existing director due to disqualification, highlighting the protection afforded to directors facing disqualification until the appeal process is finalized. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:30:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111371 The court dismissed the review petition, ruling that despite the first respondent's disqualification, he could not be forced to vacate his directorial position as he was protected under section 283(2) of the Companies Act until the appeal process concluded. The judgment emphasized the distinction between disqualifying a person from appointment as a director and causing the cessation of office for an existing director due to disqualification, highlighting the protection afforded to directors facing disqualification until the appeal process is finalized. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111371