https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431742 The court set aside the summoning order for lack of reasoning and remanded the matter back to the ACMM but decided on merits due to long pendency. The petitioner, accused under Section 233 of the Companies Act, was found to have committed violations punishable only with a fine. The complaint was held time-barred under Sections 468 and 469 of the Cr.P.C. as it exceeded the six-month limitation period from the date of offense knowledge. The court quashed the summoning order and subsequent proceedings, emphasizing the importance of binding precedent for judicial consistency. en-us Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431742 The court set aside the summoning order for lack of reasoning and remanded the matter back to the ACMM but decided on merits due to long pendency. The petitioner, accused under Section 233 of the Companies Act, was found to have committed violations punishable only with a fine. The complaint was held time-barred under Sections 468 and 469 of the Cr.P.C. as it exceeded the six-month limitation period from the date of offense knowledge. The court quashed the summoning order and subsequent proceedings, emphasizing the importance of binding precedent for judicial consistency. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431742