https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303244 The court upheld the maintainability of the complaint under Section 210 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the obligation to hold an annual meeting despite non-convening and rejecting the argument that lack of a meeting absolves the accused. Additionally, the court ruled the complaint was not time-barred, clarifying the one-year limitation period under the Criminal Procedure Code for offences punishable with imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to Rs. 1,000. The judgment dismissed the petition and affirmed the validity of the ongoing proceedings against the accused individuals. en-us Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:23:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303244 The court upheld the maintainability of the complaint under Section 210 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the obligation to hold an annual meeting despite non-convening and rejecting the argument that lack of a meeting absolves the accused. Additionally, the court ruled the complaint was not time-barred, clarifying the one-year limitation period under the Criminal Procedure Code for offences punishable with imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to Rs. 1,000. The judgment dismissed the petition and affirmed the validity of the ongoing proceedings against the accused individuals. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303244