https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105437 Allegations that the company had crossed the prescribed paid-up capital threshold and thereby failed to appoint a whole-time company secretary were sufficient to disclose a prima facie offence under the Companies Act and relevant Rules. The proviso invoked by the accused was treated as a defence to be proved at trial, not a ground for quashing at the threshold. In revisional or inherent jurisdiction, the court confined itself to whether the complaint disclosed a case for proceeding and declined to examine the merits in detail. en-us Tue, 29 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:40:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105437 Allegations that the company had crossed the prescribed paid-up capital threshold and thereby failed to appoint a whole-time company secretary were sufficient to disclose a prima facie offence under the Companies Act and relevant Rules. The proviso invoked by the accused was treated as a defence to be proved at trial, not a ground for quashing at the threshold. In revisional or inherent jurisdiction, the court confined itself to whether the complaint disclosed a case for proceeding and declined to examine the merits in detail. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105437