<?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>1997 (2) TMI 429 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103826</link>
    <description>At the quashing stage, a complaint is tested as a whole to see whether it discloses the essential ingredients of an offence, and disputed questions on responsibility, knowledge, consent, or participation are left to trial. On that basis, complaints alleging unauthorised business activity, excess investments, failure to hold the annual general meeting, non-placement of accounts, excessive lending, and share-allotment irregularities were not quashed. However, where employee particulars required in the board&#039;s report had in fact been furnished in a detachable annexure, the complaint disclosed only a technical presentation defect and no actual statutory omission, so prosecution was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:15:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 429 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103826</link>
      <description>At the quashing stage, a complaint is tested as a whole to see whether it discloses the essential ingredients of an offence, and disputed questions on responsibility, knowledge, consent, or participation are left to trial. On that basis, complaints alleging unauthorised business activity, excess investments, failure to hold the annual general meeting, non-placement of accounts, excessive lending, and share-allotment irregularities were not quashed. However, where employee particulars required in the board&#039;s report had in fact been furnished in a detachable annexure, the complaint disclosed only a technical presentation defect and no actual statutory omission, so prosecution was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>