https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257525 Limitation for a statutory board's complaint was assessed from the point when the investigation report was completed and approved, because only then did the board become competent to prosecute; on that basis, the cognizance order was not time-barred. At the summoning stage, the complaint's prima facie assertion that the company and its directors were responsible for the conduct of its affairs was sufficient to support vicarious liability, and detailed proof was unnecessary. The court treated the petitioners' authorities as factually distinguishable and upheld the summoning order, rejecting the challenge on both limitation and merits. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257525 Limitation for a statutory board's complaint was assessed from the point when the investigation report was completed and approved, because only then did the board become competent to prosecute; on that basis, the cognizance order was not time-barred. At the summoning stage, the complaint's prima facie assertion that the company and its directors were responsible for the conduct of its affairs was sufficient to support vicarious liability, and detailed proof was unnecessary. The court treated the petitioners' authorities as factually distinguishable and upheld the summoning order, rejecting the challenge on both limitation and merits. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257525