<?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>1936 (12) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96739</link>
    <description>An offence under Section 134 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 could not be sustained where the balance-sheet had not first been laid before the general meeting, because the section presupposed that prior step; convictions under Section 134(4) were therefore set aside. Liability under Section 131(4) for default in preparing and laying the balance-sheet could not be imposed on persons who became directors, officers, or shareholders only after the default had already occurred, so the convictions of those later entrants were quashed. The first petitioner&#039;s conviction under Section 131(4) was maintained, as the court found that conviction and sentence proper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:48:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (12) TMI 24 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96739</link>
      <description>An offence under Section 134 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 could not be sustained where the balance-sheet had not first been laid before the general meeting, because the section presupposed that prior step; convictions under Section 134(4) were therefore set aside. Liability under Section 131(4) for default in preparing and laying the balance-sheet could not be imposed on persons who became directors, officers, or shareholders only after the default had already occurred, so the convictions of those later entrants were quashed. The first petitioner&#039;s conviction under Section 131(4) was maintained, as the court found that conviction and sentence proper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>