https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214715 Where a complaint specifically alleged that promoters and directors were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business and had actively connived in the offence, process could properly issue against them under the deeming liability provision of the special statute. The court held that cognizance is taken of the offence, not merely of named offenders, and that later issuance of process after particulars were supplied did not render the proceedings without jurisdiction. It also rejected the contention that summons could issue only under Section 319 CrPC, holding that Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 could not be avoided at the threshold. The challenge to quashing failed. en-us Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214715 Where a complaint specifically alleged that promoters and directors were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business and had actively connived in the offence, process could properly issue against them under the deeming liability provision of the special statute. The court held that cognizance is taken of the offence, not merely of named offenders, and that later issuance of process after particulars were supplied did not render the proceedings without jurisdiction. It also rejected the contention that summons could issue only under Section 319 CrPC, holding that Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 could not be avoided at the threshold. The challenge to quashing failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214715