<?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>2009 (8) TMI 693 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112628</link>
    <description>Special Court jurisdiction extended to offences arising from bill discounting and rediscounting transactions because the statutory definition of securities was inclusive and the enactment was to receive a liberal construction. RBI directions binding on scheduled banks and the bank&#039;s internal manual required bona fide commercial bills, proper documentation, security and caution; the transactions violated those safeguards. On that basis, deliberate use of bank funds in disregard of mandatory banking norms amounted to criminal breach of trust, and the coordinated conduct, account opening, fund routing and meetings supported criminal conspiracy. Liability was sustained for the principal accused, while the Scale IV officer was not proved guilty of conspiracy and was also not liable for breach of trust.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 693 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112628</link>
      <description>Special Court jurisdiction extended to offences arising from bill discounting and rediscounting transactions because the statutory definition of securities was inclusive and the enactment was to receive a liberal construction. RBI directions binding on scheduled banks and the bank&#039;s internal manual required bona fide commercial bills, proper documentation, security and caution; the transactions violated those safeguards. On that basis, deliberate use of bank funds in disregard of mandatory banking norms amounted to criminal breach of trust, and the coordinated conduct, account opening, fund routing and meetings supported criminal conspiracy. Liability was sustained for the principal accused, while the Scale IV officer was not proved guilty of conspiracy and was also not liable for breach of trust.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>