<?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>1999 (1) TMI 411 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104064</link>
    <description>Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 empowers the Court to relieve company officers from criminal liability for alleged statutory defaults where the evidence shows they acted honestly and reasonably in the circumstances. On the facts presented, the delay in compliance with the share-transfer requirement under section 113 was accepted as occurring for the reasons stated by the petitioners, and their conduct was found to justify relief. Statutory relief was therefore granted, and the petitioners were excused from liability for negligence, breach of trust, breach of duty, misfeasance, or default arising from the alleged non-compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:04:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 411 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104064</link>
      <description>Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 empowers the Court to relieve company officers from criminal liability for alleged statutory defaults where the evidence shows they acted honestly and reasonably in the circumstances. On the facts presented, the delay in compliance with the share-transfer requirement under section 113 was accepted as occurring for the reasons stated by the petitioners, and their conduct was found to justify relief. Statutory relief was therefore granted, and the petitioners were excused from liability for negligence, breach of trust, breach of duty, misfeasance, or default arising from the alleged non-compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>