Case Law Details
Kalanithi Maran Vs. UOI (Madras High Court)
In the absence of any material, 2nd respondent should not have come to conclusion that assessee was Principal Officer. Unless the 2nd respondent makes out a prima facie case against petitioner of his liability and obligation as Principal Officer in day-to-day affairs of the company as Chairman-cum-Managing Director of company, petitioner could not be prosecuted under section 276 B for the offence committed by company. A mere allegation that the petitioner was incharge of conduct of company was not sufficient to hold that petitioner was Principal Officer. There should be credible material to show his active involvement in the conduct and management and business of the company.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent with respect to the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 and to quash the same.
2. The brief case of the petitnioer is as follows:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
