<?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>1992 (3) TMI 299 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103143</link>
    <description>Relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was granted to protect directors from prosecution for non-compliance with filing obligations where the company had been declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, had ceased operations, and appellate proceedings against the winding-up order were pending. The court treated the company&#039;s inability to prepare and file accounts and records as a relevant circumstance and deferred criminal action until revival. No prosecution was to be launched against the directors under sections 210 and 220 until the company was revived, and the required records were to be filed within six months thereafter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:23:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 299 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103143</link>
      <description>Relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was granted to protect directors from prosecution for non-compliance with filing obligations where the company had been declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, had ceased operations, and appellate proceedings against the winding-up order were pending. The court treated the company&#039;s inability to prepare and file accounts and records as a relevant circumstance and deferred criminal action until revival. No prosecution was to be launched against the directors under sections 210 and 220 until the company was revived, and the required records were to be filed within six months thereafter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>