https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111604 The court dismissed the company petitions, stating that the petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence to warrant relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was advised to present necessary evidence in the court where any prosecution would occur to establish innocence. The court emphasized that despite resigning and having a non-executive role, as a signatory to the prospectus, the petitioner could not escape responsibilities and liabilities. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:52:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111604 The court dismissed the company petitions, stating that the petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence to warrant relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was advised to present necessary evidence in the court where any prosecution would occur to establish innocence. The court emphasized that despite resigning and having a non-executive role, as a signatory to the prospectus, the petitioner could not escape responsibilities and liabilities. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111604