https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126966 Where a company had already supplied the particulars called for in the first notice under section 209A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and the authority failed to identify any specific deficiency in that disclosure, the alleged non-compliance was not made out. The commentary also notes that limitation for prosecution ran from the first alleged default, not from a later show-cause notice, because the offence was not treated as continuing on the facts. On that basis, the criminal complaint was time-barred and the proceedings were liable to be quashed. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126966 Where a company had already supplied the particulars called for in the first notice under section 209A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and the authority failed to identify any specific deficiency in that disclosure, the alleged non-compliance was not made out. The commentary also notes that limitation for prosecution ran from the first alleged default, not from a later show-cause notice, because the offence was not treated as continuing on the facts. On that basis, the criminal complaint was time-barred and the proceedings were liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126966