<?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>1968 (10) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98568</link>
    <description>Section 542 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies in winding up where business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for a fraudulent purpose, and pre-1956 conduct may be used as factual material without making the provision retrospective. Proof that directors knowingly participated in concealment of defalcations, falsification of accounts, misleading entries, ratified fictitious advances, and fraudulent preference can attract liability, but the court must still determine the company&#039;s total debts or liabilities before fastening personal liability. Death of a respondent after hearing and reservation of judgment did not abate the proceedings, as judgment could still be pronounced under Order 22 Rule 6 CPC. The adverse observations on account books were not interfered with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2022 13:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (10) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98568</link>
      <description>Section 542 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies in winding up where business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for a fraudulent purpose, and pre-1956 conduct may be used as factual material without making the provision retrospective. Proof that directors knowingly participated in concealment of defalcations, falsification of accounts, misleading entries, ratified fictitious advances, and fraudulent preference can attract liability, but the court must still determine the company&#039;s total debts or liabilities before fastening personal liability. Death of a respondent after hearing and reservation of judgment did not abate the proceedings, as judgment could still be pronounced under Order 22 Rule 6 CPC. The adverse observations on account books were not interfered with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>