https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401450 The court declined the petitioner's request to waive the deposit amount required for contesting directorship elections under Section 160 of the Companies Act, 2013. Emphasizing the statutory mandate of a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh, the court rejected the plea for interim relief, stressing the importance of adhering to legal obligations. The judgment underscored the necessity of complying with prescribed procedures in corporate governance matters, affirming the significance of upholding statutory provisions in directorship contests. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2020 11:04:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401450 The court declined the petitioner's request to waive the deposit amount required for contesting directorship elections under Section 160 of the Companies Act, 2013. Emphasizing the statutory mandate of a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh, the court rejected the plea for interim relief, stressing the importance of adhering to legal obligations. The judgment underscored the necessity of complying with prescribed procedures in corporate governance matters, affirming the significance of upholding statutory provisions in directorship contests. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401450