https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783944 The dominant issue was whether the regulatory notice alleging contraventions of s.129(1) read with Schedule III of the Companies Act was vitiated by limitation and non-application of mind. The HC held that limitation for offences punishable with imprisonment is one year, computed from the date of knowledge, and on the admitted chronology the limitation for the alleged contraventions had expired on specified dates well before issuance of the impugned notice; consequently, the notice was time-barred and unsustainable. The HC further found the notice to be mechanically issued, containing a foundational factual error regarding absence of any reply, evidencing non-application of mind and breach of natural justice; accordingly, the notice was set aside and the petition allowed. en-us Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 18:42:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783944 The dominant issue was whether the regulatory notice alleging contraventions of s.129(1) read with Schedule III of the Companies Act was vitiated by limitation and non-application of mind. The HC held that limitation for offences punishable with imprisonment is one year, computed from the date of knowledge, and on the admitted chronology the limitation for the alleged contraventions had expired on specified dates well before issuance of the impugned notice; consequently, the notice was time-barred and unsustainable. The HC further found the notice to be mechanically issued, containing a foundational factual error regarding absence of any reply, evidencing non-application of mind and breach of natural justice; accordingly, the notice was set aside and the petition allowed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783944