<?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>1972 (7) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98925</link>
    <description>The article examines whether &quot;books of account and other books and papers&quot; in s.209(4)(a) encompass nomination papers, applying statutory construction doctrines (noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis) and legislative history to restrict the phrase to documents of the same character as accounting and production records; it finds nomination papers are not of that character. It also assesses corporate governance facts showing the secretary acted under the president&#039;s directive, concluding criminal liability cannot attach where refusal to permit inspection originated from authorised corporate orders. The consequence addressed is quashing of the conviction and acquittal of the secretary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:13:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (7) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98925</link>
      <description>The article examines whether &quot;books of account and other books and papers&quot; in s.209(4)(a) encompass nomination papers, applying statutory construction doctrines (noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis) and legislative history to restrict the phrase to documents of the same character as accounting and production records; it finds nomination papers are not of that character. It also assesses corporate governance facts showing the secretary acted under the president&#039;s directive, concluding criminal liability cannot attach where refusal to permit inspection originated from authorised corporate orders. The consequence addressed is quashing of the conviction and acquittal of the secretary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>