https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437588 Disputed director status and the petitioner's exact role during the relevant financial year were central to the challenge to alleged non-disclosure in the board report. The Court noted that the record showed the report was filed when the petitioner was reflected as an additional director, but the documentary materials did not conclusively determine his responsibility without trial evidence. Applying the settled principle that corporate criminal liability may proceed where statutory responsibility and a sufficient factual basis are disclosed, the Court held that the case was not fit for quashing at the threshold. The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue and the issue was left for trial. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 May 2023 08:46:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437588 Disputed director status and the petitioner's exact role during the relevant financial year were central to the challenge to alleged non-disclosure in the board report. The Court noted that the record showed the report was filed when the petitioner was reflected as an additional director, but the documentary materials did not conclusively determine his responsibility without trial evidence. Applying the settled principle that corporate criminal liability may proceed where statutory responsibility and a sufficient factual basis are disclosed, the Court held that the case was not fit for quashing at the threshold. The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue and the issue was left for trial. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437588