<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (7) TMI 367 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424812</link>
    <description>Regular bail under the Companies Act prosecution was granted after the Court applied the statutory twin conditions in Section 212(6) on a prima facie basis. The petitioner&#039;s role as stock auditor for a later period was found materially distinct from the core allegations, the prosecution material showed adverse audit observations but did not displace the Court&#039;s view that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty, and similarly placed co-accused had already obtained bail. The Court also noted that the petitioner had remained at liberty for a substantial period and was not likely to commit an offence while on bail, so the bail request was allowed and the interim application became infructuous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2022 08:01:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 367 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424812</link>
      <description>Regular bail under the Companies Act prosecution was granted after the Court applied the statutory twin conditions in Section 212(6) on a prima facie basis. The petitioner&#039;s role as stock auditor for a later period was found materially distinct from the core allegations, the prosecution material showed adverse audit observations but did not displace the Court&#039;s view that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty, and similarly placed co-accused had already obtained bail. The Court also noted that the petitioner had remained at liberty for a substantial period and was not likely to commit an offence while on bail, so the bail request was allowed and the interim application became infructuous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>