<?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>2007 (8) TMI 459 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112253</link>
    <description>Criminal complaints for offences under the Companies Act, 1956 punishable with imprisonment up to two years are subject to the three-year limitation period under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Limitation begins when the Registrar of Companies obtains actionable knowledge through an inspection report disclosing the alleged defaults. Time spent examining deficiencies, issuing notices, or deciding whether to prosecute is not excluded unless legislation expressly permits exclusion. Where complaints were filed after expiry of the limitation period, the resulting summoning order and proceedings were treated as unsustainable and quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:10:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 459 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112253</link>
      <description>Criminal complaints for offences under the Companies Act, 1956 punishable with imprisonment up to two years are subject to the three-year limitation period under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Limitation begins when the Registrar of Companies obtains actionable knowledge through an inspection report disclosing the alleged defaults. Time spent examining deficiencies, issuing notices, or deciding whether to prosecute is not excluded unless legislation expressly permits exclusion. Where complaints were filed after expiry of the limitation period, the resulting summoning order and proceedings were treated as unsustainable and quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>