https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96774 The complaint by a Deputy Registrar was held maintainable under the Companies Act, but the prosecution was barred on substantive grounds: the alleged offence involved omission rather than a deliberate false statement, so the mens rea element for a Section 448-type false statement offence is absent, and the complaint contains no specific allegation of knowing falsity. Separately, the company was not arraigned and vicarious liability of directors cannot be imposed absent statutory provision and the company as primary offender; continuation would be abuse of process and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. en-us Wed, 11 Feb 2026 09:36:35 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 09:36:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96774 The complaint by a Deputy Registrar was held maintainable under the Companies Act, but the prosecution was barred on substantive grounds: the alleged offence involved omission rather than a deliberate false statement, so the mens rea element for a Section 448-type false statement offence is absent, and the complaint contains no specific allegation of knowing falsity. Separately, the company was not arraigned and vicarious liability of directors cannot be imposed absent statutory provision and the company as primary offender; continuation would be abuse of process and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. Highlights Companies Law Wed, 11 Feb 2026 09:36:35 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96774