https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103026 Cognizance of a complaint alleging contravention of section 370(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court applied section 469(1)(b) to hold that limitation began when the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged default, which on the admitted facts occurred at the latest when the inspection wing detected non-compliance and issued notice. As the complaint was filed more than one year after that point, section 468 barred cognizance and the proceedings were treated as time-barred and liable to be quashed. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:11:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103026 Cognizance of a complaint alleging contravention of section 370(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court applied section 469(1)(b) to hold that limitation began when the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged default, which on the admitted facts occurred at the latest when the inspection wing detected non-compliance and issued notice. As the complaint was filed more than one year after that point, section 468 barred cognizance and the proceedings were treated as time-barred and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103026