https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415621 The Court quashed the prosecution under Section 165 r/w 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, against the petitioner for holding directorship in 24 companies, exceeding the permissible limit of 20 companies. The Court found that the respondent had not considered the petitioner's responses to show cause notices and Compounding Application before initiating the prosecution, indicating a lack of due consideration. Consequently, the complaint was deemed unsustainable, and the Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition, directing the respondent to review the Compounding Application within four weeks. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415621 The Court quashed the prosecution under Section 165 r/w 165(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, against the petitioner for holding directorship in 24 companies, exceeding the permissible limit of 20 companies. The Court found that the respondent had not considered the petitioner's responses to show cause notices and Compounding Application before initiating the prosecution, indicating a lack of due consideration. Consequently, the complaint was deemed unsustainable, and the Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition, directing the respondent to review the Compounding Application within four weeks. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415621