<?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 (7) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97837</link>
    <description>Pre-trial requirements requiring company-law authorities to refer matters to a prescribed authority before prosecution regulate administrative action and do not affect the criminal court&#039;s jurisdiction or invalidate a trial. Non-compliance is therefore a procedural irregularity. The later statutory scheme permitting retrospective regularisation of earlier loans and guarantees through prescribed approval was inconsistent with continued prosecution under the repealed prohibition, without any contrary intention preserving prior liability. Consequently, prosecution for the earlier contravention was not maintainable and the convictions were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:44:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (7) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97837</link>
      <description>Pre-trial requirements requiring company-law authorities to refer matters to a prescribed authority before prosecution regulate administrative action and do not affect the criminal court&#039;s jurisdiction or invalidate a trial. Non-compliance is therefore a procedural irregularity. The later statutory scheme permitting retrospective regularisation of earlier loans and guarantees through prescribed approval was inconsistent with continued prosecution under the repealed prohibition, without any contrary intention preserving prior liability. Consequently, prosecution for the earlier contravention was not maintainable and the convictions were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>