<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (1) TMI 572 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113658</link>
    <description>An undisputed certified copy of Form 32 may be considered in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC where it is an unimpeachable public document capable of finally disposing of the complaint without trial. Applying principles of vicarious criminal liability under section 27 of the SEBI Act, treated as materially identical to section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a former director who had resigned before the alleged regulatory defaults and was not in office at the relevant time cannot be proceeded against unless material shows consent, connivance, neglect, or responsibility for the company&#039;s business. The complaint was quashed to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 572 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113658</link>
      <description>An undisputed certified copy of Form 32 may be considered in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC where it is an unimpeachable public document capable of finally disposing of the complaint without trial. Applying principles of vicarious criminal liability under section 27 of the SEBI Act, treated as materially identical to section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a former director who had resigned before the alleged regulatory defaults and was not in office at the relevant time cannot be proceeded against unless material shows consent, connivance, neglect, or responsibility for the company&#039;s business. The complaint was quashed to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>