https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97159 A penal provision must be construed strictly, so a joint promissory note executed by a company and its managing agents did not amount to the company "guaranteeing a loan" within section 87-D of the Indore Companies Act; liability could not be extended beyond the technical meaning of guarantee, and the first respondent was not guilty on that basis. A director who did not sign or execute the promissory note was not a party to the relevant act and could not be convicted under the same provision. The procedural irregularity in recording statements did not justify a retrial, and the acquittal remained undisturbed. en-us Sat, 22 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:17:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97159 A penal provision must be construed strictly, so a joint promissory note executed by a company and its managing agents did not amount to the company "guaranteeing a loan" within section 87-D of the Indore Companies Act; liability could not be extended beyond the technical meaning of guarantee, and the first respondent was not guilty on that basis. A director who did not sign or execute the promissory note was not a party to the relevant act and could not be convicted under the same provision. The procedural irregularity in recording statements did not justify a retrial, and the acquittal remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Sat, 22 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97159