https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444779 Limitation for prosecution under the Companies Act was held to run, for offences not immediately known, from the date the competent authority gained knowledge under Section 469 CrPC; the complaint was treated as timely because knowledge was taken from the show-cause notice date, not the later sanction date. A quashing challenge based on Rule 3 of the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 also failed because the company's industry classification raised a disputed factual issue, including its own description as an edible oil seeds and oils business, which had to be examined by the trial court on evidence. The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:45:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444779 Limitation for prosecution under the Companies Act was held to run, for offences not immediately known, from the date the competent authority gained knowledge under Section 469 CrPC; the complaint was treated as timely because knowledge was taken from the show-cause notice date, not the later sanction date. A quashing challenge based on Rule 3 of the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 also failed because the company's industry classification raised a disputed factual issue, including its own description as an edible oil seeds and oils business, which had to be examined by the trial court on evidence. The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444779