<?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>2022 (4) TMI 1629 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457316</link>
    <description>The HC quashed a complaint filed against company directors for failing to file E Form 5 INV under Section 205C of Companies Act 1956. The complaint alleged non-filing of the form regarding unclaimed dividend amounts of Rs. 10,00,000. The court found that petitioners had timely replied to the show cause notice dated 21.07.2014, contrary to allegations. The HC held the show cause notice was defective as it merely reproduced statutory provisions without specifying the particular default. The respondent&#039;s failure to consider petitioners&#039; replies constituted non-application of mind, depriving them of valid defense. The petition was allowed and complaint deemed unsustainable in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2024 20:01:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1629 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457316</link>
      <description>The HC quashed a complaint filed against company directors for failing to file E Form 5 INV under Section 205C of Companies Act 1956. The complaint alleged non-filing of the form regarding unclaimed dividend amounts of Rs. 10,00,000. The court found that petitioners had timely replied to the show cause notice dated 21.07.2014, contrary to allegations. The HC held the show cause notice was defective as it merely reproduced statutory provisions without specifying the particular default. The respondent&#039;s failure to consider petitioners&#039; replies constituted non-application of mind, depriving them of valid defense. The petition was allowed and complaint deemed unsustainable in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>