https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408135 Writ petitions challenging summons issued under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 were held premature because the statutory inquiry had only begun. The Registrar of Companies was acting within power to seek further information, explanations and documents on the alleged removal of directors and the manner in which resolutions were passed. Article 226 interference is justified only if the summons is shown to be without jurisdiction or without authority of law. Since no final adverse order had been passed and the petitioners' objections, including mediation and the alleged withdrawal of resolutions, were matters for the inquiry itself, the challenge was not maintainable at that stage and the Registrar could continue after giving a fair opportunity. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408135 Writ petitions challenging summons issued under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 were held premature because the statutory inquiry had only begun. The Registrar of Companies was acting within power to seek further information, explanations and documents on the alleged removal of directors and the manner in which resolutions were passed. Article 226 interference is justified only if the summons is shown to be without jurisdiction or without authority of law. Since no final adverse order had been passed and the petitioners' objections, including mediation and the alleged withdrawal of resolutions, were matters for the inquiry itself, the challenge was not maintainable at that stage and the Registrar could continue after giving a fair opportunity. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408135