<?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>1996 (12) TMI 296 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103370</link>
    <description>At the stage of taking cognizance in a complaint, the court must determine only whether the complaint, statements and documents prima facie disclose an offence, without weighing defences that may arise later. Applying that standard, the material showed that shareholders had purchased shares, sent them for transfer, and the company allegedly failed to register the transfer, so cognizance and issuance of process under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 were justified. A territorial objection was also rejected because the alleged default was sufficiently connected with the company&#039;s statutory duties and business operations; the Magistrate at Jaipur was therefore competent to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:24:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 296 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103370</link>
      <description>At the stage of taking cognizance in a complaint, the court must determine only whether the complaint, statements and documents prima facie disclose an offence, without weighing defences that may arise later. Applying that standard, the material showed that shareholders had purchased shares, sent them for transfer, and the company allegedly failed to register the transfer, so cognizance and issuance of process under section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 were justified. A territorial objection was also rejected because the alleged default was sufficiently connected with the company&#039;s statutory duties and business operations; the Magistrate at Jaipur was therefore competent to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>