. Her action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation of Section 89/7 of the SEA. This case is under
authorized director, causing the company to suffer losses. His action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation
revenues from normal course of business. As a matter of fact, such revenues were classified as other incomes from acting as agent for rendering services. The revenues were not generated from the actual
toner and printers, Baht 26.09 million, were the revenues from normal course of business. As a matter of fact, such revenues were classified as other incomes from acting as agent for selling of goods. The
revenues from normal course of business. As a matter of fact, such revenues were classified as other incomes from acting as agent for selling of goods. The revenues were not generated from the actual
(6) Mr. Tanyapisist Saprod and (7) Miss Metta Poking jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which