https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394737 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, emphasizing its regulatory nature. It quashed the direction to prosecute under Section 212(14) due to lack of proper application of mind to the extensive SFIO report. The court allowed the petitions challenging the NCLT's jurisdiction after the auditors' resignation, stating the NCLT lost jurisdiction post-resignation. It highlighted the necessity of thorough consideration before issuing prosecution directions and ruled that the incomplete SFIO report did not support prosecution. The court's orders included quashing the direction to prosecute, rejecting NCLT's order, and granting interim relief for eight weeks. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 14:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394737 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, emphasizing its regulatory nature. It quashed the direction to prosecute under Section 212(14) due to lack of proper application of mind to the extensive SFIO report. The court allowed the petitions challenging the NCLT's jurisdiction after the auditors' resignation, stating the NCLT lost jurisdiction post-resignation. It highlighted the necessity of thorough consideration before issuing prosecution directions and ruled that the incomplete SFIO report did not support prosecution. The court's orders included quashing the direction to prosecute, rejecting NCLT's order, and granting interim relief for eight weeks. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394737