https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98682 Section 332(3) of the Companies Act, 1948 was construed narrowly as a consolidation provision linked to the winding-up scheme, not as a free-standing fraudulent trading offence. The majority relied on its connection with subsection (1), its placement among winding-up provisions, the structure of the earlier enactment, and the criminal-law principle that ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the narrower construction. The dissent viewed the wording as clear and unrestricted. The provision was held to apply only where the company had been or was being wound up, so prosecution without liquidation could not stand. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:05:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98682 Section 332(3) of the Companies Act, 1948 was construed narrowly as a consolidation provision linked to the winding-up scheme, not as a free-standing fraudulent trading offence. The majority relied on its connection with subsection (1), its placement among winding-up provisions, the structure of the earlier enactment, and the criminal-law principle that ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the narrower construction. The dissent viewed the wording as clear and unrestricted. The provision was held to apply only where the company had been or was being wound up, so prosecution without liquidation could not stand. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 27 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98682