<?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>1987 (4) TMI 406 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101602</link>
    <description>Criminal breach of trust requires prima facie material of dishonest intention and dishonest conversion or misappropriation of entrusted property; mere non-payment or retention of money is insufficient. On the facts, the security deposit was to remain with the company for a fixed period, receipts were issued, repayment was linked to surrender of the receipt, and the record did not show personal use of the ? Let&#039;s ensure no mistake. The auditor&#039;s report supported compliance, and the material did not displace the Magistrate&#039;s finding. No prima facie offence under sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out, so dismissal of the complaint was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:12:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 406 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101602</link>
      <description>Criminal breach of trust requires prima facie material of dishonest intention and dishonest conversion or misappropriation of entrusted property; mere non-payment or retention of money is insufficient. On the facts, the security deposit was to remain with the company for a fixed period, receipts were issued, repayment was linked to surrender of the receipt, and the record did not show personal use of the ? Let&#039;s ensure no mistake. The auditor&#039;s report supported compliance, and the material did not displace the Magistrate&#039;s finding. No prima facie offence under sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out, so dismissal of the complaint was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>