Holding Directorship of companies in excess of the limits ...

Court Rules Accused Exceeding Directorship Limit Entitled to Benefits Under Explanation-II, Section 165(1) of Companies Act.

May 24, 2023

Case Laws Companies Law HC

Holding Directorship of companies in excess of the limits prescribed (29 Companies) u/s 165 - Applying the above principles to the instant case on hand, it is found that the Parliament had made amendments for the purpose of easing the doing of business and also for reduction of prosecution that are filed in the Special Court - there is no reason why the said Amendment cannot be applied in favour of the accused in the pending prosecution. The accused shall also be entitled to the benefit of Explanation-II to Section 165(1) of the Companies Act. - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Holding Directorship of companies in excess of the limits ...

Court Rules Accused Exceeding Directorship Limit Entitled to Benefits Under Explanation-II, Section 165(1) of Companies Act.

May 24, 2023

Case Laws Companies Law HC

You may also like:

Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA permits certain categories of accused, including women, to be released on bail without satisfying twin requirements u/s 45. While woman...

HC allowed the petition, holding that a manufacturer/exporter can claim one input-side benefit and one output-side benefit without constituting double benefit. The court...

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Explanations to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule...

Section 80-I deduction was denied for the unexpired period when a partnership firm was converted into a private limited company carrying on the same activity. However,...

The circular enhances monetary limits for filing appeals by the Income Tax Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts, and Supreme Court. For appeals...

The circular addresses the Reduction of Government Litigation by setting monetary limits for filing appeals before GSTAT, High Courts, and Supreme Court. It refers to...

The High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix and...

HC ruled that time limits under Section 144C(13) for completing assessments following DRP directions are mandatory, not directory. The AO must pass orders within one...

Filing of Form GST TRAN-1 - time limit for filing of the form - The time limit stipulated under Rule 117 of the Rules is not ultra vires of the Act. This Rule is...

This case deals with the issue of granting bail in a case involving forgery, creation of fake GST firms, and related economic offenses. The key points are: The court...

The Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by setting aside an arbitral award that had already been confirmed...

The CESTAT dismissed an appeal for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, after multiple adjournments exceeded the statutory maximum of three....

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioners accused of using false documents and abetment. Citing legal precedents like u/s BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH V....

Jurisdiction of Superintendent to pass the order - Monetary limit - The High Court noted that, the circular dated 9.2.2018 limited the power of the Superintendent,...

Service Tax on GTA under reverse charge - while Rule 2(l) and 2(p) cover two classes of persons, the recipient of GTA services, by virtue of the Explanation to Rule...

Quick Updates: