https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394566 The accused was found guilty of contravening Section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 by continuing to hold directorships in more than 20 companies beyond the permissible limit. The court deemed the documents filed by the complainant as admissible evidence, upheld the competency of the witness, rejected the limitation argument, and concluded that the accused's actions constituted a continuing offense. Consequently, the accused was convicted under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 for the said contravention. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394566 The accused was found guilty of contravening Section 165(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 by continuing to hold directorships in more than 20 companies beyond the permissible limit. The court deemed the documents filed by the complainant as admissible evidence, upheld the competency of the witness, rejected the limitation argument, and concluded that the accused's actions constituted a continuing offense. Consequently, the accused was convicted under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 for the said contravention. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394566