<?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>1971 (4) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98812</link>
    <description>Public examination under section 196 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 may be ordered only when the liquidator&#039;s report discloses a prima facie case of fraud against persons sufficiently connected with the company&#039;s promotion, formation, or management. The partners of the managing agency firm were properly subjected to examination because the report alleged diversion of funds, dealings with assets, and account manipulation, which supported an inference of fraud. By contrast, two directors who merely participated in passing resolutions, without material showing fraudulent involvement or dishonest intention, could not be publicly examined. The order was therefore upheld against the partners and set aside for the directors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:18:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98812</link>
      <description>Public examination under section 196 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 may be ordered only when the liquidator&#039;s report discloses a prima facie case of fraud against persons sufficiently connected with the company&#039;s promotion, formation, or management. The partners of the managing agency firm were properly subjected to examination because the report alleged diversion of funds, dealings with assets, and account manipulation, which supported an inference of fraud. By contrast, two directors who merely participated in passing resolutions, without material showing fraudulent involvement or dishonest intention, could not be publicly examined. The order was therefore upheld against the partners and set aside for the directors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>