<?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>1984 (3) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100950</link>
    <description>Defaults in filing annual returns and balance-sheet documents under the Companies Act were held not to be continuing offences, because the breach was complete on expiry of the statutory filing period. The court applied the principle that a continuing offence exists only where the obligation itself persists and liability renews from day to day until compliance. The language prescribing a fine for each day of continued default was treated as a measure of punishment, not as creating continuity of the offence. As the complaints were filed after the ordinary six-month limitation period, they were barred by limitation and the proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:38:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 285 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100950</link>
      <description>Defaults in filing annual returns and balance-sheet documents under the Companies Act were held not to be continuing offences, because the breach was complete on expiry of the statutory filing period. The court applied the principle that a continuing offence exists only where the obligation itself persists and liability renews from day to day until compliance. The language prescribing a fine for each day of continued default was treated as a measure of punishment, not as creating continuity of the offence. As the complaints were filed after the ordinary six-month limitation period, they were barred by limitation and the proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>