https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408899 The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail as the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. The court found the petitioner's involvement in signing and filing false financial statements constituted serious economic offenses under the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner's reliance on explanations from the Chartered Accountant was deemed insufficient, emphasizing the director's duty to exercise due care and diligence. The court highlighted the mandatory and cumulative nature of the conditions for bail and denied anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the offenses committed. en-us Fri, 30 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408899 The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail as the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. The court found the petitioner's involvement in signing and filing false financial statements constituted serious economic offenses under the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner's reliance on explanations from the Chartered Accountant was deemed insufficient, emphasizing the director's duty to exercise due care and diligence. The court highlighted the mandatory and cumulative nature of the conditions for bail and denied anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the offenses committed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408899