https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300108 Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 can be invoked before criminal proceedings begin, because it allows a director or officer to seek relief on apprehension of proceedings and is meant to prevent undue hardship. The alleged defaults under Sections 211, 292 and 370 were not sustained on the facts: the deposits were treated as fixed-term interest-bearing deposits rather than portfolio management scheme investments, post facto board approval was accepted as sufficient compliance for the Section 292 issue, and a governmental exemption with retrospective approval removed the basis for the Section 370 allegation. The show cause notices and consequential proceedings were quashed. en-us Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:55:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300108 Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 can be invoked before criminal proceedings begin, because it allows a director or officer to seek relief on apprehension of proceedings and is meant to prevent undue hardship. The alleged defaults under Sections 211, 292 and 370 were not sustained on the facts: the deposits were treated as fixed-term interest-bearing deposits rather than portfolio management scheme investments, post facto board approval was accepted as sufficient compliance for the Section 292 issue, and a governmental exemption with retrospective approval removed the basis for the Section 370 allegation. The show cause notices and consequential proceedings were quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300108