<?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 (12) TMI 757 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105041</link>
    <description>In proceedings for alleged non-payment of dividend, the Companies Act scheme required the company to pay declared dividend within 42 days by cash, cheque or warrant, or to avoid liability by proving lawful despatch or transfer of unpaid amounts to the special unpaid dividend account. The complainant could prove declaration and entitlement, but non-receipt remained a negative fact and could not be proved by compelled production of extraneous bank records. Documents from a particular bank branch and the bank manager&#039;s evidence were therefore not relevant to the complainant&#039;s burden or to the prosecution issue, and the summoning order was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:41:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 757 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105041</link>
      <description>In proceedings for alleged non-payment of dividend, the Companies Act scheme required the company to pay declared dividend within 42 days by cash, cheque or warrant, or to avoid liability by proving lawful despatch or transfer of unpaid amounts to the special unpaid dividend account. The complainant could prove declaration and entitlement, but non-receipt remained a negative fact and could not be proved by compelled production of extraneous bank records. Documents from a particular bank branch and the bank manager&#039;s evidence were therefore not relevant to the complainant&#039;s burden or to the prosecution issue, and the summoning order was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>