https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194136 The court quashed the criminal case under Section 220 of the Companies Act against accused No.3, a director of a public company. The court emphasized that to be considered an "officer in default," specific allegations must establish that the director falls under the categories mentioned in Section 5 of the Companies Act. As the complaint lacked such specific allegations and did not prove that the director was designated as the compliance officer or accustomed to acting in compliance with board instructions, the court found the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and all proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. en-us Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:56:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194136 The court quashed the criminal case under Section 220 of the Companies Act against accused No.3, a director of a public company. The court emphasized that to be considered an "officer in default," specific allegations must establish that the director falls under the categories mentioned in Section 5 of the Companies Act. As the complaint lacked such specific allegations and did not prove that the director was designated as the compliance officer or accustomed to acting in compliance with board instructions, the court found the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and all proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194136