https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287498 Section 25FFA liability requires proof that the employer intended to close the undertaking, and the Madras High Court found that such intention was not established on the facts, including the takeover of the unit by SIPCOT and payment of salary up to August 1992. The Court also held that the complaint was barred by limitation because the offence was complete on the date of closure, the later notice and correspondence did not extend time, and no exclusion under Section 470(3) CrPC was available in the absence of prior sanction or consent. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 13:37:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287498 Section 25FFA liability requires proof that the employer intended to close the undertaking, and the Madras High Court found that such intention was not established on the facts, including the takeover of the unit by SIPCOT and payment of salary up to August 1992. The Court also held that the complaint was barred by limitation because the offence was complete on the date of closure, the later notice and correspondence did not extend time, and no exclusion under Section 470(3) CrPC was available in the absence of prior sanction or consent. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287498