<?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>2000 (3) TMI 926 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104681</link>
    <description>At the quashing stage, the Court will not test disputed facts or weigh evidence; if the complaint, taken at face value, contains specific averments attracting vicarious liability, inherent powers under section 482 CrPC should not be used to stop the proceedings. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, as ex-executive president of the manufacturer, was responsible for and controlled the company&#039;s business, which was sufficient to disclose the offence under section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. Whether he was in fact in charge of the business was a matter for trial, so the charge was not quashed and the petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:52:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 926 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104681</link>
      <description>At the quashing stage, the Court will not test disputed facts or weigh evidence; if the complaint, taken at face value, contains specific averments attracting vicarious liability, inherent powers under section 482 CrPC should not be used to stop the proceedings. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, as ex-executive president of the manufacturer, was responsible for and controlled the company&#039;s business, which was sufficient to disclose the offence under section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. Whether he was in fact in charge of the business was a matter for trial, so the charge was not quashed and the petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>