https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269688 The territorial jurisdiction objection failed because the petition was under Article 226, not under the Companies Act, and the impugned order was made in Delhi where the hearing also took place. On approval under Section 314(1B) read with Rule 5(a), the Court held that a relative's mere non-executive, non-remunerative directorship in other companies does not by itself amount to holding a place of profit or breach the requirement of exclusive employment. The administrative refusal, based only on that circumstance, was unsustainable and the approval was treated as granted for the relevant period. en-us Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Dec 2015 07:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269688 The territorial jurisdiction objection failed because the petition was under Article 226, not under the Companies Act, and the impugned order was made in Delhi where the hearing also took place. On approval under Section 314(1B) read with Rule 5(a), the Court held that a relative's mere non-executive, non-remunerative directorship in other companies does not by itself amount to holding a place of profit or breach the requirement of exclusive employment. The administrative refusal, based only on that circumstance, was unsustainable and the approval was treated as granted for the relevant period. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 17 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269688