https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260688 The Director, referred to as P-2, did not automatically cease to be a Director under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956. The Respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence of absenteeism from consecutive Board Meetings without obtaining leave of absence. The judgment emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and proper adherence to legal requirements in determining the cessation of a Director's office. Further proceedings were allowed regarding the Director's right to inspect company records based on misconduct or breach of fiduciary duty, while affirming the Director's continued status as a Director in the company. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260688 The Director, referred to as P-2, did not automatically cease to be a Director under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956. The Respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence of absenteeism from consecutive Board Meetings without obtaining leave of absence. The judgment emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and proper adherence to legal requirements in determining the cessation of a Director's office. Further proceedings were allowed regarding the Director's right to inspect company records based on misconduct or breach of fiduciary duty, while affirming the Director's continued status as a Director in the company. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260688