<?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 (3) TMI 463 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101601</link>
    <description>Alleged non-maintenance and non-production of statutory registers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder were treated as sufficient to sustain prosecution of company directors on a vicarious liability basis where the complaint indicated responsibility for the business. The Court applied the settled principle that precise individual roles need not be pleaded at the complaint stage when the persons accused are shown to be in charge of the company&#039;s affairs. Objections based on the complaint referring to section 22A instead of section 22C were not accepted as a ground for interference, and the quashing request was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 463 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101601</link>
      <description>Alleged non-maintenance and non-production of statutory registers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder were treated as sufficient to sustain prosecution of company directors on a vicarious liability basis where the complaint indicated responsibility for the business. The Court applied the settled principle that precise individual roles need not be pleaded at the complaint stage when the persons accused are shown to be in charge of the company&#039;s affairs. Objections based on the complaint referring to section 22A instead of section 22C were not accepted as a ground for interference, and the quashing request was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>