https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112624 A resigned director cannot be arrayed as an accused for later non-filing defaults when his resignation had been effective and communicated to the Registrar long before the alleged offences. The Madras HC noted that the complaint under sections 159, 162 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 proceeded on the assumption that he remained an officer in default, but the record showed resignation with effect from 13-3-1998 and no basis to attribute liability for defaults in 2006. The Court also found non-application of mind in ignoring repeated communications about the resignation. The criminal proceedings against him were quashed. en-us Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112624 A resigned director cannot be arrayed as an accused for later non-filing defaults when his resignation had been effective and communicated to the Registrar long before the alleged offences. The Madras HC noted that the complaint under sections 159, 162 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 proceeded on the assumption that he remained an officer in default, but the record showed resignation with effect from 13-3-1998 and no basis to attribute liability for defaults in 2006. The Court also found non-application of mind in ignoring repeated communications about the resignation. The criminal proceedings against him were quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112624