<?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>2002 (6) TMI 442 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106358</link>
    <description>A complaint for an offence punishable with fine only under the Companies Act was filed after expiry of limitation, and no application for condonation of delay or explanation justifying cognizance was placed before the Magistrate. In those circumstances, cognizance could not be validly taken and the order issuing process was not legally sustainable. The limitation objection was therefore upheld, and the challenge to the process order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 442 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106358</link>
      <description>A complaint for an offence punishable with fine only under the Companies Act was filed after expiry of limitation, and no application for condonation of delay or explanation justifying cognizance was placed before the Magistrate. In those circumstances, cognizance could not be validly taken and the order issuing process was not legally sustainable. The limitation objection was therefore upheld, and the challenge to the process order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>