https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397399 A petition for prosecution for perjury under Section 340 CrPC was not entertained because the alleged falsehood concerned AGM minutes and other company-law disputes already required to be adjudicated by the NCLT. The Supreme Court's consent order had directed that the company petition and the connected Section 340 application be decided by the CLB/NCLT, and had indicated that the High Court need not proceed further with the related criminal miscellaneous proceedings. Adjudication in the petition would have overlapped with matters sub judice before the NCLT and conflicted with the course laid down by the Supreme Court, so the petitioner was relegated to pursue the remedy before the NCLT in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Nov 2021 18:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397399 A petition for prosecution for perjury under Section 340 CrPC was not entertained because the alleged falsehood concerned AGM minutes and other company-law disputes already required to be adjudicated by the NCLT. The Supreme Court's consent order had directed that the company petition and the connected Section 340 application be decided by the CLB/NCLT, and had indicated that the High Court need not proceed further with the related criminal miscellaneous proceedings. Adjudication in the petition would have overlapped with matters sub judice before the NCLT and conflicted with the course laid down by the Supreme Court, so the petitioner was relegated to pursue the remedy before the NCLT in accordance with law. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397399