<?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>2000 (2) TMI 720 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104655</link>
    <description>Liability for contravention of sections 73(2B) and 113(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 attaches to the company and every officer in default. Ordinary directors are not automatically covered by that definition; under section 5, they become liable only where the company has no managing director, whole-time director, manager or secretary, or where specific responsibility is pleaded. Because the complaint itself showed that the company had a managing director, the ordinary directors could not be treated as officers in default merely by virtue of office. The criminal proceedings against them were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 720 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104655</link>
      <description>Liability for contravention of sections 73(2B) and 113(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 attaches to the company and every officer in default. Ordinary directors are not automatically covered by that definition; under section 5, they become liable only where the company has no managing director, whole-time director, manager or secretary, or where specific responsibility is pleaded. Because the complaint itself showed that the company had a managing director, the ordinary directors could not be treated as officers in default merely by virtue of office. The criminal proceedings against them were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>