https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291579 The Registrar of Companies was competent to institute the complaint because Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 authorises such prosecution, so the objection to maintainability failed. The claim that the petitioner company was exempt under Section 58A, and whether the alleged advertisement attracted Sections 58A(2)(b) and 58A(6), involved factual questions requiring trial on evidence, so they could not be reopened in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The quashment request was rejected and the prosecution was allowed to proceed, with the exemption defence left open for trial. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291579 The Registrar of Companies was competent to institute the complaint because Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 authorises such prosecution, so the objection to maintainability failed. The claim that the petitioner company was exempt under Section 58A, and whether the alleged advertisement attracted Sections 58A(2)(b) and 58A(6), involved factual questions requiring trial on evidence, so they could not be reopened in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The quashment request was rejected and the prosecution was allowed to proceed, with the exemption defence left open for trial. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291579