<?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>1998 (7) TMI 509 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103727</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction in complaints for failure to transfer shares and send company documents lay where the statutory duty had to be performed, namely at the company&#039;s registered office, not where the complainant received or expected the documents. The Bangalore Special Court therefore lacked jurisdiction because the company&#039;s registered office was outside Karnataka. When a complaint is filed before a court not competent to take cognizance, the proper course is to return it for presentation before the correct court under the Criminal Procedure Code. Questions on limitation and mens rea were left open for the court having jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:36:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 509 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103727</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction in complaints for failure to transfer shares and send company documents lay where the statutory duty had to be performed, namely at the company&#039;s registered office, not where the complainant received or expected the documents. The Bangalore Special Court therefore lacked jurisdiction because the company&#039;s registered office was outside Karnataka. When a complaint is filed before a court not competent to take cognizance, the proper course is to return it for presentation before the correct court under the Criminal Procedure Code. Questions on limitation and mens rea were left open for the court having jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>