https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424150 At the discharge stage under section 245 CrPC, a complaint alleging that company directors were in charge of and responsible for the business was sufficient to proceed. The directors could not obtain discharge by asserting lack of knowledge or due diligence, because those defences raised disputed questions of fact that had to be tested at trial. The proviso to section 27 of the SEBI Act placed the burden on such persons to establish absence of knowledge or due diligence. Allegations of mobilisation of public funds through redeemable preference shares without statutory compliance, together with regulatory findings and complaint averments, disclosed a prima facie case against the accused. en-us Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:23:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424150 At the discharge stage under section 245 CrPC, a complaint alleging that company directors were in charge of and responsible for the business was sufficient to proceed. The directors could not obtain discharge by asserting lack of knowledge or due diligence, because those defences raised disputed questions of fact that had to be tested at trial. The proviso to section 27 of the SEBI Act placed the burden on such persons to establish absence of knowledge or due diligence. Allegations of mobilisation of public funds through redeemable preference shares without statutory compliance, together with regulatory findings and complaint averments, disclosed a prima facie case against the accused. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424150