<?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>1957 (12) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97557</link>
    <description>Penal liability of company directors for statutory defaults under the Companies Act is not automatic on proof of the company&#039;s failure alone. The prosecution must prove that the particular officer was knowingly and wilfully a party to the default in holding general meetings and in laying the balance-sheet and profit and loss account before the company. Where the only witness had no direct knowledge of the company&#039;s affairs and could not speak to any fact showing conscious participation, the essential ingredient was not established. The conviction was therefore unsustainable, and the accused were entitled to acquittal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:15:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (12) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97557</link>
      <description>Penal liability of company directors for statutory defaults under the Companies Act is not automatic on proof of the company&#039;s failure alone. The prosecution must prove that the particular officer was knowingly and wilfully a party to the default in holding general meetings and in laying the balance-sheet and profit and loss account before the company. Where the only witness had no direct knowledge of the company&#039;s affairs and could not speak to any fact showing conscious participation, the essential ingredient was not established. The conviction was therefore unsustainable, and the accused were entitled to acquittal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>