https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105922 Non-compliance with section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, in appointing a sole selling agent was held punishable under section 629A, because the statutory restriction attached to the appointment itself and no separate punishment was provided for its breach. The High Court rejected the contention that the complaint should be quashed merely because summons were not issued in Form No. 30, treating that defect as insufficient to defeat the proceedings. The petition for quashing was therefore rejected, subject to liberty for the petitioners to raise limitation before the trial court at the appropriate stage. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:56:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105922 Non-compliance with section 294(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, in appointing a sole selling agent was held punishable under section 629A, because the statutory restriction attached to the appointment itself and no separate punishment was provided for its breach. The High Court rejected the contention that the complaint should be quashed merely because summons were not issued in Form No. 30, treating that defect as insufficient to defeat the proceedings. The petition for quashing was therefore rejected, subject to liberty for the petitioners to raise limitation before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 06 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105922