https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433136 The court held that the petitioner, as an additional director at the time of the alleged offenses, was prima facie liable for violations under Section 217(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. Quashing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of court process, leading to the dismissal of CRR 1752 of 2020. All related applications were resolved, interim orders were lifted, and the judgment was to be forwarded to the Trial Court for appropriate action. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 22 Jan 2023 20:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433136 The court held that the petitioner, as an additional director at the time of the alleged offenses, was prima facie liable for violations under Section 217(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. Quashing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of court process, leading to the dismissal of CRR 1752 of 2020. All related applications were resolved, interim orders were lifted, and the judgment was to be forwarded to the Trial Court for appropriate action. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433136