https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458526 Complaints under the SEBI Act were stated to survive a quashing challenge where they contained sufficient averments that directors and other persons were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business at the relevant time. Disputes over whether a director had ceased to hold office or lacked involvement were treated as factual defences requiring evidence, not grounds for interference at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. The text also states that transfer of the complaint to the Additional Sessions Judge without a formal commitment under Section 193 CrPC did not invalidate the proceedings, as that court was regarded as having jurisdiction in similar SEBI plantation-company matters. The petitions were declined and the complaints were permitted to proceed to trial. en-us Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 12:45:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458526 Complaints under the SEBI Act were stated to survive a quashing challenge where they contained sufficient averments that directors and other persons were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business at the relevant time. Disputes over whether a director had ceased to hold office or lacked involvement were treated as factual defences requiring evidence, not grounds for interference at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. The text also states that transfer of the complaint to the Additional Sessions Judge without a formal commitment under Section 193 CrPC did not invalidate the proceedings, as that court was regarded as having jurisdiction in similar SEBI plantation-company matters. The petitions were declined and the complaints were permitted to proceed to trial. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458526