Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC held that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant for recovery of unpaid sale consideration do not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, as mere sale transactions do not amount to entrustment of goods. The Court criticized the High Court for permitting criminal proceedings in a pure civil dispute, emphasizing that such resort amounts to abuse of process. The SC underscored established jurisprudence clarifying the distinction between civil claims and criminal breach of trust. Observations by the High Court suggesting criminal prosecution as a substitute for civil recovery were condemned. Consequently, the SC set aside the impugned High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, partially allowing the appeal.
The SC held that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant for recovery of unpaid sale consideration do not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, as mere sale transactions do not amount to entrustment of goods. The Court criticized the High Court for permitting criminal proceedings in a pure civil dispute, emphasizing that such resort amounts to abuse of process. The SC underscored established jurisprudence clarifying the distinction between civil claims and criminal breach of trust. Observations by the High Court suggesting criminal prosecution as a substitute for civil recovery were condemned. Consequently, the SC set aside the impugned High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, partially allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
