https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112169 The article examines judicial application of the preventive power to appoint government directors where company affairs are conducted prejudicial to public interest. It identifies mismanagement indicators-failure to repay public deposits, diversion of substantial funds to associate concerns, large unexplained write offs and qualified audit notes-and states that such factors justify limited government intervention under the preventive object of the statutory power. The Court upheld appointment of two government directors as proportionate to safeguard public interest and rejected the Central Government's request for six directors as unnecessary and disproportionate to the supervisory purpose. en-us Thu, 17 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:36:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112169 The article examines judicial application of the preventive power to appoint government directors where company affairs are conducted prejudicial to public interest. It identifies mismanagement indicators-failure to repay public deposits, diversion of substantial funds to associate concerns, large unexplained write offs and qualified audit notes-and states that such factors justify limited government intervention under the preventive object of the statutory power. The Court upheld appointment of two government directors as proportionate to safeguard public interest and rejected the Central Government's request for six directors as unnecessary and disproportionate to the supervisory purpose. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 17 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112169