https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102140 For complaints under section 372 of the Companies Act, 1956, limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 runs from the date the offence comes to the knowledge of the aggrieved person; receipt of balance-sheets disclosing the alleged excess investment was treated as constructive knowledge, so the complaint was time-barred. On the exemption issue, the company qualified as an investment company because its principal business remained acquisition and holding of shares and securities, even though its objects had been widened to include ancillary activities. The commentary concludes that both the limitation defence and the investment-company exemption were sustained, leaving the acquittal intact. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:50:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102140 For complaints under section 372 of the Companies Act, 1956, limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 runs from the date the offence comes to the knowledge of the aggrieved person; receipt of balance-sheets disclosing the alleged excess investment was treated as constructive knowledge, so the complaint was time-barred. On the exemption issue, the company qualified as an investment company because its principal business remained acquisition and holding of shares and securities, even though its objects had been widened to include ancillary activities. The commentary concludes that both the limitation defence and the investment-company exemption were sustained, leaving the acquittal intact. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102140