<?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>1940 (9) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96837</link>
    <description>The note addresses whether a company satisfies the statutory requirement that its name be &quot;painted or affixed&quot; on the outside of its office when a board bearing the name is fixed on the wall opposite the landing outside the office room and is readily visible. It applies strict construction for penal provisions and emphasises the provision&#039;s object-to give notice of limited liability-concluding that a board of adequate conspicuousness and legibility outside the office room meets the literal requirement even within a multi-occupant premises, and that an additional board at the compound gate is not required; the conviction under the related penal provision could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1940 (9) TMI 16 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96837</link>
      <description>The note addresses whether a company satisfies the statutory requirement that its name be &quot;painted or affixed&quot; on the outside of its office when a board bearing the name is fixed on the wall opposite the landing outside the office room and is readily visible. It applies strict construction for penal provisions and emphasises the provision&#039;s object-to give notice of limited liability-concluding that a board of adequate conspicuousness and legibility outside the office room meets the literal requirement even within a multi-occupant premises, and that an additional board at the compound gate is not required; the conviction under the related penal provision could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 1940 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>