https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403262 An application to strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 CPC was refused because the impugned averments concerned prior litigation, the parties' status, and public documents, and were not scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or abusive. The court also held that Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not in pari materia because they operate in different fields. Cognizance under Section 439(2) is confined to complaints by statutorily specified persons, so an unauthorised complainant cannot initiate proceedings against a company or its directors. The revisional court erred by focusing on the accused's status rather than the complainant's competence, and its order was set aside. en-us Mon, 18 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:30:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403262 An application to strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 CPC was refused because the impugned averments concerned prior litigation, the parties' status, and public documents, and were not scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or abusive. The court also held that Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not in pari materia because they operate in different fields. Cognizance under Section 439(2) is confined to complaints by statutorily specified persons, so an unauthorised complainant cannot initiate proceedings against a company or its directors. The revisional court erred by focusing on the accused's status rather than the complainant's competence, and its order was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403262