TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directed against the order dated 6-11-2000 passed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi whereby the petitioner's application for discharge was dismissed. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there was a serious error in the impugned order inasmuch as the complaint that had been initiated against the present petitioner was on the ground that he was a managing director ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prepared under section 159 of the Act, was required to be filed, the petitioner was no longer the managing director of the said company. The learned senior counsel drew my attention to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint under section 159/162 of the Act, in respect of the present petitioner. In paragraph 2 of the said complaint, it is stated that the accused company is represented by Mr. S.N. Jai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ACMM failed to accept it as substantive evidence of the fact that the petitioner was no longer the managing director of the company with effect from 6-5-1996. 2. The learned counsel also points out that apart from this one complaint there are six other similar complaints for different years all on the same basis and have been dealt with in the same manner by the impugned order. 3. The learned c....