https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457586 A director inducted after a Company Law Board repayment order was not automatically relieved from liability for alleged non-compliance. The Madras HC held that a later-appointed director assumes responsibility to ensure existing binding orders against the company are complied with, and that questions whether he was in charge of the business or had resigned to avoid compliance are matters for evidence. Because the complaint disclosed prima facie material of possible liability, the proceedings were not quashed and were permitted to continue. en-us Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 20:31:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457586 A director inducted after a Company Law Board repayment order was not automatically relieved from liability for alleged non-compliance. The Madras HC held that a later-appointed director assumes responsibility to ensure existing binding orders against the company are complied with, and that questions whether he was in charge of the business or had resigned to avoid compliance are matters for evidence. Because the complaint disclosed prima facie material of possible liability, the proceedings were not quashed and were permitted to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457586