https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423663 The High Court acquitted the petitioner of all charges, setting aside the convictions by the trial court and lower appellate court. It was determined that the shares held in the name of Shri Venkatachalapathy were not acquired with fraudulent intent, and the petitioner's actions did not constitute impersonation. The court also found that the complaint under Section 68A of the Companies Act was not filed by an authorized person and that SEBI had jurisdiction over such matters. The court concluded that the appropriate action for non-compliance under Section 187C would be a penalty, not criminal prosecution. en-us Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423663 The High Court acquitted the petitioner of all charges, setting aside the convictions by the trial court and lower appellate court. It was determined that the shares held in the name of Shri Venkatachalapathy were not acquired with fraudulent intent, and the petitioner's actions did not constitute impersonation. The court also found that the complaint under Section 68A of the Companies Act was not filed by an authorized person and that SEBI had jurisdiction over such matters. The court concluded that the appropriate action for non-compliance under Section 187C would be a penalty, not criminal prosecution. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423663