https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21747 Prima facie allegations of conspiracy, wilful abetment and responsibility for the company's business were held sufficient to require a nominee-director to face trial, because his asserted limited role could not be decided at the threshold without evidence. The Court also held that protection under section 30A of the Industrial Development Bank of India Act depended on whether the alleged acts were done in good faith in discharge of duties, which likewise required trial evidence and could not justify quashing. The petition for quashing was therefore not sustainable at the initial stage. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:58:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21747 Prima facie allegations of conspiracy, wilful abetment and responsibility for the company's business were held sufficient to require a nominee-director to face trial, because his asserted limited role could not be decided at the threshold without evidence. The Court also held that protection under section 30A of the Industrial Development Bank of India Act depended on whether the alleged acts were done in good faith in discharge of duties, which likewise required trial evidence and could not justify quashing. The petition for quashing was therefore not sustainable at the initial stage. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21747