<?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>2016 (5) TMI 520 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327539</link>
    <description>The High Court held that criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not covered by the expressions in Sections 446(1) and 442 of the Companies Act. The court concluded that the legislative intent of protecting company assets during winding-up does not extend to personal criminal liabilities of directors. The matter was referred to a Single Judge for further proceedings in the original writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 23:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 520 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327539</link>
      <description>The High Court held that criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not covered by the expressions in Sections 446(1) and 442 of the Companies Act. The court concluded that the legislative intent of protecting company assets during winding-up does not extend to personal criminal liabilities of directors. The matter was referred to a Single Judge for further proceedings in the original writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>