The article discusse that the passing of the Companies Act, 2013 has ended numerous controversies regarding resignation as it incorporated the principles laid in the case of Saumil Dilip Mitra v. State of Maharshtra and Ors. and many others that followed.

In this case the Madras High Court opined that a writ of Mandamus should only be issued if it is uniformity with Section 45 of The Specific Relief Act, 1877. In this case, no writ is issued because there are no rights of the plaintiff declared. Board of Directors are authorised to take appropriate decisions in the general meeting for the better functioning of the company by complying with the laid legal provisions.

Corporate fraud is an illegal, deceptive activity performed by a corporation or a person who works for the company. They result in the loss of a company’s market capitalization and brand value. They are alarmingly prevalent in several countries and sectors of the economy.

When the moratorium period is imposed then in such case certain activities as prescribed under the Act has been kept on stay i.e., during this time the corporate debtor shall not initiate the arbitration proceeding. In other words, that when the imposition of moratorium takes place then during that time the corporate debtor will not be allowed to invoke the provisions of remedy available under various different provisions.

This piece would attempt to carefully peruse the facts of the case, the contentions and submissions raised during the trial as well as the appropriateness of judgment given in respect of statute. It would also contain factual opinions and legal recourse to the duty of registrars of companies and how it relates to the case in question.

This case laid down a basic rule that if a director had an interest in a corporate transaction, the transaction is voidable at the company’s will, and it is the duty of directors to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

The Ashbury Railways case laid the foundation of the ultra vires rules and confined the acts of the company within the ambit of the object clause of the MOA. This was rendered moot to a great extent after the introduction of the changes in the Companies Act 2006 since section 17 of the Act does not mandate any company to have a MOA.

The judgment provides that the RBI dependence on Section 35AA was for only a specific cause and it will affect the legal compliance if used in any matter rather than a specific clause and without the authorisation provided by the Central Government. RBI should create a new and specific regulatory framework which provide for the implementation intended through the power already conferred in the code.

The case discusses the need to keep a check on the activities of a company is very important to save oneself from situation of crisis. The Companies Act 2013 provides for mandatory constitution of Audit committee to keep a check on the activities of company

The pronouncements throw light on the fact that there is a long way to go for Indian courts in the arena of copyright law. The authors, musicians, artists, etc., need to be protected to encourage suitable environment for creativity.