<?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>2001 (1) TMI 878 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105872</link>
    <description>While suspending a sentence for an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court may impose a condition requiring deposit or remittance of part of the fine within a specified time. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s view that such a condition is proper where imprisonment and fine are suspended pending appeal or revision, and found the direction neither unjust nor unconscionable. No interference was called for, so the suspension condition was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 878 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105872</link>
      <description>While suspending a sentence for an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court may impose a condition requiring deposit or remittance of part of the fine within a specified time. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s view that such a condition is proper where imprisonment and fine are suspended pending appeal or revision, and found the direction neither unjust nor unconscionable. No interference was called for, so the suspension condition was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>