https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305658 A prosecution under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to be a continuing offence, so limitation ran from when the competent authority received actionable knowledge from the inspection report. Because the complaint was filed after the one-year limitation period, the proceedings were barred. The complaint also failed to plead essential facts showing the alleged accounting-standard breach, including any specific averment that borrowing costs were capitalised in asset cost or that self-created software was involved. In these circumstances, the High Court exercised its inherent power to prevent abuse of process and quashed the complaint and summoning order. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:14:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305658 A prosecution under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to be a continuing offence, so limitation ran from when the competent authority received actionable knowledge from the inspection report. Because the complaint was filed after the one-year limitation period, the proceedings were barred. The complaint also failed to plead essential facts showing the alleged accounting-standard breach, including any specific averment that borrowing costs were capitalised in asset cost or that self-created software was involved. In these circumstances, the High Court exercised its inherent power to prevent abuse of process and quashed the complaint and summoning order. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305658