<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1933 (6) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96620</link>
    <description>A company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 remained subject to its mandatory obligations to file members&#039; lists, accounts and balance-sheet even though it also carried on life insurance business under the Life Insurance Companies Act, 1912. The special life insurance regime did not displace the general company-law duties, and admitted non-compliance attracted the statutory penalties. The company&#039;s claim that its accounts could not be produced because criminal courts had called for them was rejected, as the duties were absolute and no statutory excuse was shown. An appeal filed in the name of the managing director, rather than the convicted company, was improperly constituted, though the merits were still examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:57:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1933 (6) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96620</link>
      <description>A company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 remained subject to its mandatory obligations to file members&#039; lists, accounts and balance-sheet even though it also carried on life insurance business under the Life Insurance Companies Act, 1912. The special life insurance regime did not displace the general company-law duties, and admitted non-compliance attracted the statutory penalties. The company&#039;s claim that its accounts could not be produced because criminal courts had called for them was rejected, as the duties were absolute and no statutory excuse was shown. An appeal filed in the name of the managing director, rather than the convicted company, was improperly constituted, though the merits were still examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>