https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397557 The court granted an interim order in favor of the petitioners challenging their disqualification as directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The court acknowledged the petitioners' argument that the proviso to Section 167(1) was inserted post their disqualification period, raising questions about the retrospective or prospective application of the proviso. Considering previous court orders and judicial precedents, the court found merit in the petitioners' case and allowed them to file affidavits in response to the opposition. Further proceedings were scheduled for detailed examination in September 2020. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Aug 2020 11:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397557 The court granted an interim order in favor of the petitioners challenging their disqualification as directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The court acknowledged the petitioners' argument that the proviso to Section 167(1) was inserted post their disqualification period, raising questions about the retrospective or prospective application of the proviso. Considering previous court orders and judicial precedents, the court found merit in the petitioners' case and allowed them to file affidavits in response to the opposition. Further proceedings were scheduled for detailed examination in September 2020. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397557