https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101447 Section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 required a sole selling agent's appointment to be made subject to approval at the first general meeting after appointment. Because the complaint did not specifically aver that the appointment order or resolution omitted this statutory condition, it failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. The court held that, even though limitation was raised, the decisive defect was the absence of a necessary allegation showing contravention. Cognizance on that complaint was therefore unsustainable and the complaint was liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:36:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101447 Section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 required a sole selling agent's appointment to be made subject to approval at the first general meeting after appointment. Because the complaint did not specifically aver that the appointment order or resolution omitted this statutory condition, it failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. The court held that, even though limitation was raised, the decisive defect was the absence of a necessary allegation showing contravention. Cognizance on that complaint was therefore unsustainable and the complaint was liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101447