https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171162 A complaint filed more than three years after the alleged contravention was treated as time-barred, since the offence was punishable only with fine and attracted a six-month limitation period. Condonation of delay had to be considered before cognizance, and the Magistrate was required to apply judicial mind and pass a clear, speaking order showing that the delay was properly explained or that condonation served the interests of justice. The explanation offered was found vague and insufficient. The complaint was also materially weakened by the company board's prior resolution approving the lease with the petitioner and his wife, making the nondisclosure allegation inherently doubtful. The summoning order was therefore quashed. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2015 12:56:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171162 A complaint filed more than three years after the alleged contravention was treated as time-barred, since the offence was punishable only with fine and attracted a six-month limitation period. Condonation of delay had to be considered before cognizance, and the Magistrate was required to apply judicial mind and pass a clear, speaking order showing that the delay was properly explained or that condonation served the interests of justice. The explanation offered was found vague and insufficient. The complaint was also materially weakened by the company board's prior resolution approving the lease with the petitioner and his wife, making the nondisclosure allegation inherently doubtful. The summoning order was therefore quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 29 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171162