<?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>1960 (2) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97700</link>
    <description>Distinct statutory duties in company administration were treated as separately enforceable: the obligations to hold a general meeting, prepare and send the annual list and summary, lay the balance-sheet and profit and loss account before the company, and file copies with the Registrar could each support independent conviction. The absence of an annual general meeting did not negate later defaults, and a person could not rely on his own earlier non-compliance to defeat liability for later breaches. Repeated non-compliance despite Registrar notices supported the inference that the directors and managing director acted knowingly and wilfully. Relief requiring honest and reasonable conduct was refused because the prolonged defaults showed disregard of legal obligations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:07:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (2) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97700</link>
      <description>Distinct statutory duties in company administration were treated as separately enforceable: the obligations to hold a general meeting, prepare and send the annual list and summary, lay the balance-sheet and profit and loss account before the company, and file copies with the Registrar could each support independent conviction. The absence of an annual general meeting did not negate later defaults, and a person could not rely on his own earlier non-compliance to defeat liability for later breaches. Repeated non-compliance despite Registrar notices supported the inference that the directors and managing director acted knowingly and wilfully. Relief requiring honest and reasonable conduct was refused because the prolonged defaults showed disregard of legal obligations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>