https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312517 The HC disposed of the petition concerning alleged violations under Sections 372A, 85(3) r/w 211 and Schedule II of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court held that when a show cause notice is issued, it initiates proceedings regarding negligence, default, or breach of duty, but criminal action requires a separate factual finding. The respondent must pass reasoned orders on two aspects: merit regarding negligence/default attributable to the officer, and the decision to proceed under criminal law. The Court emphasized that while the respondent determines negligence issues, only the Court can decide if an officer acted honestly and reasonably under Section 463(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent was directed to pass appropriate reasoned orders considering the petitioners' replies. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2024 05:57:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312517 The HC disposed of the petition concerning alleged violations under Sections 372A, 85(3) r/w 211 and Schedule II of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court held that when a show cause notice is issued, it initiates proceedings regarding negligence, default, or breach of duty, but criminal action requires a separate factual finding. The respondent must pass reasoned orders on two aspects: merit regarding negligence/default attributable to the officer, and the decision to proceed under criminal law. The Court emphasized that while the respondent determines negligence issues, only the Court can decide if an officer acted honestly and reasonably under Section 463(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent was directed to pass appropriate reasoned orders considering the petitioners' replies. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312517