https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170754 Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as anticipatory relief available only before proceedings are brought; once complaints are pending, relief lies before the seized court under section 633(1). A filing default under rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was held not to be a continuing offence, because the breach is complete on expiry of the filing time unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. Complaints filed beyond the six-month limitation for a fine-only offence required condonation under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Liability also failed because the petitioners were not shown to be officers in default. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:02:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170754 Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as anticipatory relief available only before proceedings are brought; once complaints are pending, relief lies before the seized court under section 633(1). A filing default under rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was held not to be a continuing offence, because the breach is complete on expiry of the filing time unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. Complaints filed beyond the six-month limitation for a fine-only offence required condonation under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Liability also failed because the petitioners were not shown to be officers in default. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 11 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170754