<?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>1939 (1) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF RANGOON</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96788</link>
    <description>For an offence under section 4(2) of the Companies Act, 1913, proof of mutual legal relations among more than twenty subscribers was not required where the object was to form a company; the provision covered that mode of association and applied. Collection of subscription money for shares in an unregistered company completed the bargain, and the absence of share certificates or unfinished registration did not prevent the offence being made out. The non-cognizable character of the offences did not bar trial by the Magistrate, even if police investigation was irregular. The conviction was substantially upheld, with only the sentence on the first offence reduced and the default imprisonment modified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:45:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1939 (1) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF RANGOON</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96788</link>
      <description>For an offence under section 4(2) of the Companies Act, 1913, proof of mutual legal relations among more than twenty subscribers was not required where the object was to form a company; the provision covered that mode of association and applied. Collection of subscription money for shares in an unregistered company completed the bargain, and the absence of share certificates or unfinished registration did not prevent the offence being made out. The non-cognizable character of the offences did not bar trial by the Magistrate, even if police investigation was irregular. The conviction was substantially upheld, with only the sentence on the first offence reduced and the default imprisonment modified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>