https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99097 A contractual dispute over termination of an annually renewable agreement was held not to disclose cheating, because the complaint lacked averments of deception at the inception or dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property or legal injury. Mere use of labels such as dishonest intention could not convert a breach of contract into a criminal prosecution. The complaint also failed to plead facts showing that the company's officers acted as the company's directing mind so as to attract corporate criminal liability for a mens rea offence. Compensation was refused, as the material did not show the proceeding was filed wholly without reasonable or proper cause. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:33:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99097 A contractual dispute over termination of an annually renewable agreement was held not to disclose cheating, because the complaint lacked averments of deception at the inception or dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property or legal injury. Mere use of labels such as dishonest intention could not convert a breach of contract into a criminal prosecution. The complaint also failed to plead facts showing that the company's officers acted as the company's directing mind so as to attract corporate criminal liability for a mens rea offence. Compensation was refused, as the material did not show the proceeding was filed wholly without reasonable or proper cause. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 19 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99097