https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97208 Proceedings by an official liquidator were treated as maintainable despite objections that prior sanction under the Companies Act had not been obtained, because the power to institute proceedings was enabling and sanction could be granted during the proceedings. Section 282A was construed as imposing a primary order for fine and delivery or refund of property, with imprisonment arising only on default, so it did not amount to double punishment under Article 20(2). The absence of rules under the Banking Companies Act and the trial procedure did not deprive the High Court of jurisdiction. Fraudulent intention was inferred from the handling of cash, securities and jewels, and no relief was available on the basis of honest and reasonable conduct. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:20:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97208 Proceedings by an official liquidator were treated as maintainable despite objections that prior sanction under the Companies Act had not been obtained, because the power to institute proceedings was enabling and sanction could be granted during the proceedings. Section 282A was construed as imposing a primary order for fine and delivery or refund of property, with imprisonment arising only on default, so it did not amount to double punishment under Article 20(2). The absence of rules under the Banking Companies Act and the trial procedure did not deprive the High Court of jurisdiction. Fraudulent intention was inferred from the handling of cash, securities and jewels, and no relief was available on the basis of honest and reasonable conduct. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 17 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97208