<?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>1962 (4) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97918</link>
    <description>Bank balances and other intangible funds may constitute property for criminal breach of trust, and a person who has dominion over them in the course of business as agent can fall within section 409 IPC; false entries made to conceal an existing diversion were treated as falsification with intent to defraud. Procedural objections on jurisdiction, joinder and vagueness failed because the conspiracy charge gave the Delhi court jurisdiction over overt acts and no prejudice was shown. A statement made to the insurance investigator was held voluntary and admissible, as inducement, compulsion and Article 20(3) were not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (4) TMI 28 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97918</link>
      <description>Bank balances and other intangible funds may constitute property for criminal breach of trust, and a person who has dominion over them in the course of business as agent can fall within section 409 IPC; false entries made to conceal an existing diversion were treated as falsification with intent to defraud. Procedural objections on jurisdiction, joinder and vagueness failed because the conspiracy charge gave the Delhi court jurisdiction over overt acts and no prejudice was shown. A statement made to the insurance investigator was held voluntary and admissible, as inducement, compulsion and Article 20(3) were not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>