<?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>1972 (10) TMI 141 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310290</link>
    <description>Section 106 of the Factories Act fixes limitation from the date the Inspector actually acquires knowledge of the offence. An accident report describing the incident and the machinery involved did not, by itself, disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 21(1)(iv)(c), because it did not show unsafe positioning, construction, or secure fencing of the dangerous part. Read with the Inspector&#039;s evidence, the report therefore did not establish knowledge of the offence when received. Actual knowledge, not a date when knowledge might have been obtained through earlier inquiry, was the relevant starting point. The complaint was accordingly not barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:24:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (10) TMI 141 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310290</link>
      <description>Section 106 of the Factories Act fixes limitation from the date the Inspector actually acquires knowledge of the offence. An accident report describing the incident and the machinery involved did not, by itself, disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 21(1)(iv)(c), because it did not show unsafe positioning, construction, or secure fencing of the dangerous part. Read with the Inspector&#039;s evidence, the report therefore did not establish knowledge of the offence when received. Actual knowledge, not a date when knowledge might have been obtained through earlier inquiry, was the relevant starting point. The complaint was accordingly not barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>