<?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>1987 (6) TMI 353 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101508</link>
    <description>At the stage of framing charge under sections 245(1) and 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court applies the prima facie test: it asks whether the materials, if unrebutted, disclose grounds to presume the offence, not whether guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the recorded material, including the company&#039;s balance-sheets, auditors&#039; reports, notice and reply, and the admitted deposits, a prima facie contravention of the Companies Act, 1956 was shown. The petitioners were also prima facie shown to be officers in default through their directorship and participation in the company&#039;s affairs. The challenge to the framing of charge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:57:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (6) TMI 353 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101508</link>
      <description>At the stage of framing charge under sections 245(1) and 246(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court applies the prima facie test: it asks whether the materials, if unrebutted, disclose grounds to presume the offence, not whether guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the recorded material, including the company&#039;s balance-sheets, auditors&#039; reports, notice and reply, and the admitted deposits, a prima facie contravention of the Companies Act, 1956 was shown. The petitioners were also prima facie shown to be officers in default through their directorship and participation in the company&#039;s affairs. The challenge to the framing of charge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>