<?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>2013 (4) TMI 538 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231290</link>
    <description>An ordinary director cannot be prosecuted as an &quot;officer who is in default&quot; for non-compliance with section 150 of the Companies Act, 1956 where the company already had a managing director, whole-time directors and a manager. Section 5 assigns default liability primarily to those specified office-holders, or to persons specifically charged by the board, and ordinary directors are covered only in the absence of those designated officers or a specific delegation. On the admitted facts, the petitioner was only an ordinary director, so the criminal complaint against him was not maintainable and its continuation would amount to abuse of process. The complaint was quashed as against that director, while proceedings against the remaining accused continued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 538 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231290</link>
      <description>An ordinary director cannot be prosecuted as an &quot;officer who is in default&quot; for non-compliance with section 150 of the Companies Act, 1956 where the company already had a managing director, whole-time directors and a manager. Section 5 assigns default liability primarily to those specified office-holders, or to persons specifically charged by the board, and ordinary directors are covered only in the absence of those designated officers or a specific delegation. On the admitted facts, the petitioner was only an ordinary director, so the criminal complaint against him was not maintainable and its continuation would amount to abuse of process. The complaint was quashed as against that director, while proceedings against the remaining accused continued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>