https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225136 The court upheld the order taking cognizance of the offense under Sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act against the petitioners. It noted that the petitioners, as directors and signatories of the prospectus in circulation during the public issue, could be held criminally liable for misstatements. The court emphasized the limited use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the court's process. The petitions were dismissed, with pending applications disposed of accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits or addressing the limitation period issue. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:56:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225136 The court upheld the order taking cognizance of the offense under Sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act against the petitioners. It noted that the petitioners, as directors and signatories of the prospectus in circulation during the public issue, could be held criminally liable for misstatements. The court emphasized the limited use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the court's process. The petitions were dismissed, with pending applications disposed of accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits or addressing the limitation period issue. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=225136