<?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>2022 (6) TMI 286 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423445</link>
    <description>A partner of a firm appointed as statutory auditor can be proceeded against for failure to comply with investigatory obligations under the Companies Act, 1956, because the firm and its partners are not separate legal persons for that purpose. The note treats the auditor&#039;s appointment as carrying a duty to furnish information sought in the inquiry and states that signing the audit report while ignoring repeated summons supported liability. It distinguishes cases on corporate vicarious liability for directors and applies partnership principles that a partner acts for the firm, so the absence of separate arraignment of the firm did not defeat prosecution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2022 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=681277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 286 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423445</link>
      <description>A partner of a firm appointed as statutory auditor can be proceeded against for failure to comply with investigatory obligations under the Companies Act, 1956, because the firm and its partners are not separate legal persons for that purpose. The note treats the auditor&#039;s appointment as carrying a duty to furnish information sought in the inquiry and states that signing the audit report while ignoring repeated summons supported liability. It distinguishes cases on corporate vicarious liability for directors and applies partnership principles that a partner acts for the firm, so the absence of separate arraignment of the firm did not defeat prosecution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>