<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1261 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213385</link>
    <description>The duty to file a statement of affairs under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 arises after a winding-up order and is ordinarily due within 21 days, subject to extension for special reasons. Non-compliance attracts punishment only where the default is without reasonable excuse. On the facts stated, the sealed factory premises and the respondents&#039; repeated efforts to obtain inspection of the records showed that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond their control, and the statement was filed after inspection was allowed. The material did not establish wilful default or absence of reasonable cause beyond doubt, so liability for punishment under section 454(5) was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1261 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213385</link>
      <description>The duty to file a statement of affairs under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 arises after a winding-up order and is ordinarily due within 21 days, subject to extension for special reasons. Non-compliance attracts punishment only where the default is without reasonable excuse. On the facts stated, the sealed factory premises and the respondents&#039; repeated efforts to obtain inspection of the records showed that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond their control, and the statement was filed after inspection was allowed. The material did not establish wilful default or absence of reasonable cause beyond doubt, so liability for punishment under section 454(5) was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>