https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462460 The Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as lacking retrospective jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences alleged under the Companies Act, 1956, because offences under the repealed law had to follow the forum and mode of cognizance prescribed by that law. The order issuing process was also found defective for want of application of mind and non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A sanctioned scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be reopened through criminal prosecution merely on allegations of fraud, and the complaint failed to disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 68. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 22:02:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462460 The Special Court under the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as lacking retrospective jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences alleged under the Companies Act, 1956, because offences under the repealed law had to follow the forum and mode of cognizance prescribed by that law. The order issuing process was also found defective for want of application of mind and non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A sanctioned scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be reopened through criminal prosecution merely on allegations of fraud, and the complaint failed to disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 68. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462460