https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397170 A subsequent petition in inherent jurisdiction was held maintainable because the earlier quashing challenge had been withdrawn and a fresh cause of action arose when notice under Section 251 CrPC was again framed without the relied-upon documents. The Court held that summoning and issuance of notice require application of mind to the complaint and supporting material; a mechanical order, especially on a proforma, is unsustainable. As the inspection report and other foundational documents were not on record when cognizance was taken and notice was issued, the summoning order and Section 251 notice were liable to be quashed for non-application of mind and resulting prejudice. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jan 2021 18:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397170 A subsequent petition in inherent jurisdiction was held maintainable because the earlier quashing challenge had been withdrawn and a fresh cause of action arose when notice under Section 251 CrPC was again framed without the relied-upon documents. The Court held that summoning and issuance of notice require application of mind to the complaint and supporting material; a mechanical order, especially on a proforma, is unsustainable. As the inspection report and other foundational documents were not on record when cognizance was taken and notice was issued, the summoning order and Section 251 notice were liable to be quashed for non-application of mind and resulting prejudice. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397170