https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415721 The court set aside the disqualification of the petitioners as Directors under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, ruling that individual notice to directors was not mandatory. It emphasized that liabilities incurred prior to the Company's conversion to a private limited company persisted, holding Directors accountable for defaults. The court clarified the retrospective application of the Companies (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 2014, affirming the petitioners' entitlement to exemptions under the 1975 Rules. Additionally, it underscored the Company's obligation to repay deposits within the specified timeframe, irrespective of renewals, and defined "deposits" broadly under the Act. en-us Wed, 08 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:35:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415721 The court set aside the disqualification of the petitioners as Directors under Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, ruling that individual notice to directors was not mandatory. It emphasized that liabilities incurred prior to the Company's conversion to a private limited company persisted, holding Directors accountable for defaults. The court clarified the retrospective application of the Companies (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 2014, affirming the petitioners' entitlement to exemptions under the 1975 Rules. Additionally, it underscored the Company's obligation to repay deposits within the specified timeframe, irrespective of renewals, and defined "deposits" broadly under the Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 08 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415721