<?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>2020 (9) TMI 129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398010</link>
    <description>Complaints alleging false statements in balance sheets were treated as time-barred because limitation under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 began when the alleged falsity came to the prosecuting authority&#039;s knowledge. The inspection date was not stated in the complaints, so the filing dates of the balance sheets were taken as the date of knowledge. As the balance sheets were filed in March 2001 and March 2002, but show-cause notices were issued only in February 2005 and complaints were filed in July 2005, the prosecution was beyond the three-year limitation period. The complaints were therefore liable to be quashed against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:30:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398010</link>
      <description>Complaints alleging false statements in balance sheets were treated as time-barred because limitation under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 began when the alleged falsity came to the prosecuting authority&#039;s knowledge. The inspection date was not stated in the complaints, so the filing dates of the balance sheets were taken as the date of knowledge. As the balance sheets were filed in March 2001 and March 2002, but show-cause notices were issued only in February 2005 and complaints were filed in July 2005, the prosecution was beyond the three-year limitation period. The complaints were therefore liable to be quashed against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>