https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300098 Relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is confined to cases where the court can be satisfied that the officer acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. In this matter, prosecutions for alleged non-deposit of provident fund and employees' state insurance dues had already been launched, the defaults were not disputed, and the petitioner's role as occupier or principal employer remained a contested question of fact. Those disputed issues were unsuitable for determination in company proceedings, and financial difficulty or protection granted to the company did not by itself justify immunity for the director from statutory proceedings. Relief was therefore declined, leaving the petitioner to raise defences before the competent criminal court. en-us Fri, 09 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300098 Relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is confined to cases where the court can be satisfied that the officer acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. In this matter, prosecutions for alleged non-deposit of provident fund and employees' state insurance dues had already been launched, the defaults were not disputed, and the petitioner's role as occupier or principal employer remained a contested question of fact. Those disputed issues were unsuitable for determination in company proceedings, and financial difficulty or protection granted to the company did not by itself justify immunity for the director from statutory proceedings. Relief was therefore declined, leaving the petitioner to raise defences before the competent criminal court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300098