<?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>1976 (12) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99466</link>
    <description>Section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956 creates an independent duty to file the annual return; failure to do so is not excused by the non-holding of the annual general meeting, because section 159(2) permits filing even where no meeting has been held if reasons are stated. The High Court therefore treated non-filing as a distinct offence under section 162(1). It further held that where the statute imposes a fine for every day the default continues, the penalty applies only for the period of proved continuing default, and not beyond the date supported by evidence. The respondents were convicted and the daily fine was limited to the established period of default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:42:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (12) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99466</link>
      <description>Section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956 creates an independent duty to file the annual return; failure to do so is not excused by the non-holding of the annual general meeting, because section 159(2) permits filing even where no meeting has been held if reasons are stated. The High Court therefore treated non-filing as a distinct offence under section 162(1). It further held that where the statute imposes a fine for every day the default continues, the penalty applies only for the period of proved continuing default, and not beyond the date supported by evidence. The respondents were convicted and the daily fine was limited to the established period of default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>