<?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>2025 (10) TMI 1136 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780340</link>
    <description>A petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a complaint and summoning order for wrongful withholding of company property under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 was rejected where the materials showed a prima facie case that the former Managing Director had retained company articles, records, keys, accounts and related documents after removal from office. The Court held that continued directorship did not justify retention of property held by virtue of the managing office, and that entrustment was not a necessary ingredient of the offence. Objections based on vagueness of demand and disputes about electronic material or a Section 65B certificate were treated as matters for trial, not for interference at the threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:16:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1136 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780340</link>
      <description>A petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a complaint and summoning order for wrongful withholding of company property under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 was rejected where the materials showed a prima facie case that the former Managing Director had retained company articles, records, keys, accounts and related documents after removal from office. The Court held that continued directorship did not justify retention of property held by virtue of the managing office, and that entrustment was not a necessary ingredient of the offence. Objections based on vagueness of demand and disputes about electronic material or a Section 65B certificate were treated as matters for trial, not for interference at the threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>