<?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 (9) TMI 367 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101725</link>
    <description>Failure to file the balance sheet and profit and loss account within the statutory time was held not to be a continuing contravention. The obligation under the Companies Act was complete on expiry of the filing period, and the presence of a penal provision measuring fine by the period of default did not by itself convert the omission into a continuing offence. A continuing offence arises only where the statute expressly or by necessary implication creates an ongoing duty. On that basis, section 472 CrPC did not apply, limitation under section 468 CrPC was not extended, and the complaint was treated as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:01:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 367 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101725</link>
      <description>Failure to file the balance sheet and profit and loss account within the statutory time was held not to be a continuing contravention. The obligation under the Companies Act was complete on expiry of the filing period, and the presence of a penal provision measuring fine by the period of default did not by itself convert the omission into a continuing offence. A continuing offence arises only where the statute expressly or by necessary implication creates an ongoing duty. On that basis, section 472 CrPC did not apply, limitation under section 468 CrPC was not extended, and the complaint was treated as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>