<?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>1999 (5) TMI 483 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104178</link>
    <description>Wrongful withholding of company property under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was found to be made out where company records and a motorcycle, both entrusted to the petitioner, were retained after his entitlement ended. The High Court held that a later civil suit on whether he remained a director did not displace the criminal findings, because it was instituted after the criminal case had substantially progressed and the civil court was not seized of the issue when the Magistrate decided it. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings merely because a civil dispute is asserted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:41:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 483 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104178</link>
      <description>Wrongful withholding of company property under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was found to be made out where company records and a motorcycle, both entrusted to the petitioner, were retained after his entitlement ended. The High Court held that a later civil suit on whether he remained a director did not displace the criminal findings, because it was instituted after the criminal case had substantially progressed and the civil court was not seized of the issue when the Magistrate decided it. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings merely because a civil dispute is asserted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>